Forum: Ruby Compile requirements of Ruby and Extensions

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
E6344cc9a8a1f50d5887f2431905cd6c?d=identicon&s=25 Markus Kolb (Guest)
on 2006-04-01 17:51
(Received via mailing list)
Hi,

is there anywhere a list what libs ruby and a extension needs to be
configured and compiled?

Thanks.
Markus
280b41a88665fd8c699e83a9a25ef949?d=identicon&s=25 Stephen Waits (Guest)
on 2006-04-01 18:24
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 1, 2006, at 7:48 AM, Markus Kolb wrote:

> is there anywhere a list what libs ruby and a extension needs to be
> configured and compiled?

Unfortunately, no.  I dug around until I figured it out.  See
attached script for help.

--Steve
Be223e60c56535a0e465b84243aeb0d1?d=identicon&s=25 Timothy Goddard (Guest)
on 2006-04-02 04:00
(Received via mailing list)
Ruby seems to have very few dependencies. On my ruby 1.8.4 / linux
system it seems to require openssl for ruby itself and readline, zlib,
ncurses and gdbm for the standard libraries and other tools. Obviously
different platforms may have alternatives to these libraries instead.
E6344cc9a8a1f50d5887f2431905cd6c?d=identicon&s=25 Markus Kolb (Guest)
on 2006-04-02 12:29
(Received via mailing list)
Timothy Goddard wrote:
> Ruby seems to have very few dependencies. On my ruby 1.8.4 / linux
> system it seems to require openssl for ruby itself and readline, zlib,
> ncurses and gdbm for the standard libraries and other tools. Obviously
> different platforms may have alternatives to these libraries instead.
>

But that is not the end. Tk needs libtk,libtcl...
It tries to find and link with e.g. libtermcap and I don't know if it is
bad or ok if this fails.
Then I think there are replacements in Ruby script if some libs are
missing. These script replacements are of course slower in execution as
the binary code.
Shouldn't the make test check if the compilation was successful?
I've done a small C-file patch and lib/ruby/1.8/(arch)/socket.so got not
build.
The make all, make install and make test doesn't abort.
So I don't know if everything is in place after make install.
Or if it could happen that anytime in the future I use some feature and
Ruby misses a file to do its work. Or if my build is fine or it could be
done better.

It would be a very simple work for developers during development to note
 the libs they try to link with.

Then I am missing --enable/disable-features in configure.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.