Recommended way to install Rubygems
in [Ruby]
|
From: Leslie Viljoen on 16 Mar 2010 06:22 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] Hi! I am trying to install Ruby1.9.1 under Ubuntu 9.10 - with gems. I can "apt-get install ruby1.9.1", but I have often had trouble mixing package managers and installing rubygems using apt-get so I usually download it. I also see warnings on the 'net that installing rubygems using apt-get is not recommended. Contrary to http://ryanbigg.com/2009/01/ruby-191-rubygems-rails/, rubygems does not come included with ruby1.9.1 on Ubuntu, I suppose because it is packaged separately (perhaps wrongly?) So what I have tried to do is install gems by running the setup.rb program using ruby1.9.1. This seems to work, and I then get a gem1.9.1 which I can use to install gems. But when I try to require those gems, they seem to be missing: $ gem1.9.1 list *** LOCAL GEMS *** file-find (0.3.4) sys-admin (1.5.2) $ irb1.9.1 irb(main):001:0> require 'rubygems' => true irb(main):002:0> require 'file/find' LoadError: no such file to load -- file/find so... should I be using apt-get? -- Windows is a fitting punishment for those who choose it - I just wish I didn't have to be punished along with them.
From: robb on 16 Mar 2010 09:49 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Leslie Viljoen <leslieviljoen(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hi! > > I am trying to install Ruby1.9.1 under Ubuntu 9.10 - with gems. I can > "apt-get install ruby1.9.1", but I have often had trouble > mixing package managers and installing rubygems using apt-get so I usually > download it. I also see warnings on the 'net > that installing rubygems using apt-get is not recommended. > > Contrary to http://ryanbigg.com/2009/01/ruby-191-rubygems-rails/, rubygems > does not come included with ruby1.9.1 on Ubuntu, > I suppose because it is packaged separately (perhaps wrongly?) > > So what I have tried to do is install gems by running the setup.rb program > using ruby1.9.1. This seems to work, and I then > get a gem1.9.1 which I can use to install gems. But when I try to require > those gems, they seem to be missing: > > > $ gem1.9.1 list > > *** LOCAL GEMS *** > > file-find (0.3.4) > sys-admin (1.5.2) > $ irb1.9.1 > irb(main):001:0> require 'rubygems' > => true > irb(main):002:0> require 'file/find' > LoadError: no such file to load -- file/find > > > so... should I be using apt-get? > > > -- > Windows is a fitting punishment for those who choose it - I just wish I > didn't have to be punished along with them. > If you do choose to install via apt, here's the Ubuntu documentation on RubyGems from the Rails page: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/RubyOnRails#Installing RubyGems
From: Eric Hodel on 17 Mar 2010 16:43 On Mar 16, 2010, at 03:22, Leslie Viljoen wrote: > I am trying to install Ruby1.9.1 under Ubuntu 9.10 - with gems. I can > "apt-get install ruby1.9.1", but I have often had trouble > mixing package managers and installing rubygems using apt-get so I usually > download it. I also see warnings on the 'net > that installing rubygems using apt-get is not recommended. > > Contrary to http://ryanbigg.com/2009/01/ruby-191-rubygems-rails/, rubygems > does not come included with ruby1.9.1 on Ubuntu, > I suppose because it is packaged separately (perhaps wrongly?) > > So what I have tried to do is install gems by running the setup.rb program > using ruby1.9.1. This seems to work, and I then > get a gem1.9.1 which I can use to install gems. But when I try to require > those gems, they seem to be missing: > > > $ gem1.9.1 list > > *** LOCAL GEMS *** > > file-find (0.3.4) > sys-admin (1.5.2) > $ irb1.9.1 > irb(main):001:0> require 'rubygems' > => true > irb(main):002:0> require 'file/find' > LoadError: no such file to load -- file/find > > > so... should I be using apt-get? Maybe there's a package with all of ruby instead of just the pieces that ubuntu thinks constitutes ruby. My recommendation is to install all of ruby by hand instead of using apt-get.
From: Lucas Nussbaum on 17 Mar 2010 17:32 (Please Cc me when replying, I don't follow ruby-talk@ closely enough to notice replies) On 18/03/10 at 05:43 +0900, Eric Hodel wrote: > On Mar 16, 2010, at 03:22, Leslie Viljoen wrote: > > I am trying to install Ruby1.9.1 under Ubuntu 9.10 - with gems. I > > can "apt-get install ruby1.9.1", but I have often had trouble mixing > > package managers and installing rubygems using apt-get so I usually > > download it. I also see warnings on the 'net that installing > > rubygems using apt-get is not recommended. > > > > Contrary to http://ryanbigg.com/2009/01/ruby-191-rubygems-rails/, > > rubygems does not come included with ruby1.9.1 on Ubuntu, I suppose > > because it is packaged separately (perhaps wrongly?) > > > > So what I have tried to do is install gems by running the setup.rb > > program using ruby1.9.1. This seems to work, and I then get a > > gem1.9.1 which I can use to install gems. But when I try to require > > those gems, they seem to be missing: > > > > > > $ gem1.9.1 list > > > > *** LOCAL GEMS *** > > > > file-find (0.3.4) sys-admin (1.5.2) $ irb1.9.1 irb(main):001:0> > > require 'rubygems' => true irb(main):002:0> require 'file/find' > > LoadError: no such file to load -- file/find > > > > > > so... should I be using apt-get? > > Maybe there's a package with all of ruby instead of just the pieces > that ubuntu thinks constitutes ruby. > > My recommendation is to install all of ruby by hand instead of using > apt-get. In the past, we (Debian Ruby maintainers, so de-facto Ubuntu Ruby maintainers since Ubuntu just imports the Ruby packages from Debian) had problems with the fact that rubygems was shipped with the Ruby interpreter itself: some gems required a version of rubygems that was more recent than the one provided by the interpreter. So the decision was taken to get rubygems directly from upstream, independantly of the version shipped in ruby 1.8.X or ruby 1.9.1.Y. Now, on the fact that ruby is split out into several packages, it is justified by the fact that some ruby apps don't require all the native libraries normally built with the interpreter (readline, openssl, etc). To cut off the number of other packages needed on a minimal system that would just need a ruby interpreter without, say, readline, some of the native libraries are packaged separately, in the following packages: libdbm-ruby1.9.1, libgdbm-ruby1.9.1, libreadline-ruby1.9.1, libtcltk-ruby1.9.1, libopenssl-ruby1.9.1. For users who want to install "all of ruby", we also provide two packages that only depend on all the other packages: ruby-full (for 1.8) and ruby1.9.1-full (for 1.9.1, obviously). I hope this clarifies the status of Ruby in Debian and Ubuntu a bit. Also, it would be great if all the sarcasm and nasty comments on this list each time someone brings up Ruby and Debian or Ubuntu could be reduced a bit. I am working on providing Ruby packages in Debian and Ubuntu as a volunteer, and don't really enjoy all the flames I get on this list. Constructive criticism is welcomed (preferably as bug reports), but is very rare here, unfortunately. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas(a)lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas(a)nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
From: Nick Brown on 18 Mar 2010 00:36
Lucas: Thanks for maintaining the Ruby package in Ubuntu! Might I suggest that the package called "ruby" install the standard ruby, with everything? This would reduce confusion (and disapproving comments) very much. If you really think there is big demand for minimal ruby installs, go ahead and have a ruby-minimal package, too. But you should know that many people, especially newbies, are mislead by calling something "ruby" which is actually "partial-ruby". -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. |