Building Ruby

ruby-talk
1

How can I install Ruby at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/download on Ubuntu?
Is it enough to follow instrutions at readMe file? I'm not hetting it work
in that way in Ubuntu 11.10.

···

--
*Chamila Dilshan Wijayarathna,*
SMIEEE, SMIESL,
Undergraduate,
Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
University of Moratuwa.

2

How far do you get? What is the error?

-Josh

···

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Chamila Wijayarathna < cdwijayarathna@gmail.com> wrote:

How can I install Ruby at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/download on Ubuntu?
Is it enough to follow instrutions at readMe file? I'm not hetting it work
in that way in Ubuntu 11.10.

3

When I try to make, it says "executable host Ruby is required"

Josh Cheek wrote in post #1112072:

···

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Chamila Wijayarathna < > cdwijayarathna@gmail.com> wrote:

How can I install Ruby at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/download on Ubuntu?
Is it enough to follow instrutions at readMe file? I'm not hetting it work
in that way in Ubuntu 11.10.

How far do you get? What is the error?

-Josh

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

4

Building ruby requires a working ruby installation. Either you get a
previous version with apt-get or you can also use rvm.

···

2013/6/11 Chamila W. <lists@ruby-forum.com>

When I try to make, it says "executable host Ruby is required"

Josh Cheek wrote in post #1112072:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Chamila Wijayarathna < > > cdwijayarathna@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How can I install Ruby at http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/download on
Ubuntu?
>> Is it enough to follow instrutions at readMe file? I'm not hetting it
work
>> in that way in Ubuntu 11.10.
>>
>>
> How far do you get? What is the error?
>
> -Josh

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

5

I've got no ruby on my gentoo box. When I install *first* ruby via rvm install 2.0.0, it managed to compile and install.

Does rvm has some minimal ruby environment or some kind of workaround / patches ?

···

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 01:01:02AM +0900, Dominik Maier wrote:

Building ruby requires a working ruby installation. Either you get a
previous version with apt-get or you can also use rvm.

--

sent by mutt

AR (aka AleiPhoenix)
Twitter: @AccelReality
Wikipedia: AleiPhoenix
weblog: weblog.areverie.org

6

What do you mean my minimal? I installed Ruby 2.1 on my Funtoo laptop the
other day by hand. Simply set up my own environment. Also do this with some
scheme interpreters and so forth. Many people use RVM mainly to sync legacy
applications with a specific ruby patch level and gem version to avoid
breakage. Also RVM deals with some edge cases where hand compiling may be a
bit more involved; for example rvm works great with FreeBSD and OSX where
different compilers and POSIX utilities are as minimal as they come.

~Stu

···

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:34 AM, AR (aka AleiPhoenix) <aleiphoenix@gmail.com > wrote:

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 01:01:02AM +0900, Dominik Maier wrote:
> Building ruby requires a working ruby installation. Either you get a
> previous version with apt-get or you can also use rvm.
>

I've got no ruby on my gentoo box. When I install *first* ruby via rvm
install 2.0.0, it managed to compile and install.

Does rvm has some minimal ruby environment or some kind of workaround /
patches ?

--

sent by mutt

AR (aka AleiPhoenix)
Twitter: @AccelReality
Wikipedia: AleiPhoenix
weblog: weblog.areverie.org

7

I doubt whether a *executable host ruby* is required for build ruby, So I wondered.

I've tried to compile 1.9.2-p320 and 2.0.0-p195 without any problems (both are simplly configure and make), but...

When I ran make distclean then configure and make, it complained about 'executable host ruby is required. use --with-baseruby option'.

I was starting realize that there must be something different before and after running `make distclean`, so I diffed them.

diff -dru ruby-2.0.0-p195/ ruby-2.0.0-p195.distcleaned/

Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: encdb.h
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195/ext/ripper: y.output
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: golf_prelude.c
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: insns.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: insns_info.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: known_errors.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: node_name.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: optinsn.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: opt_sc.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: optunifs.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: .revision.time
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: transdb.h
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: vm.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: vmtc.inc

Looks like some files have to be generated using a *existing ruby*. and the source tarball already included them (for instance, known_errors.inc, it's from template/known_errors.inc.tmpl, written in erb). When running make distclean, those files are just be cleaned out. this should be the reason.

Anyway, according to some google answers, building 1.8.x which doesn't require a existing ruby, then using --baseruby should do the trick.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

···

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:06:23AM +0900, Stu wrote:

What do you mean my minimal? I installed Ruby 2.1 on my Funtoo laptop the
other day by hand. Simply set up my own environment. Also do this with some
scheme interpreters and so forth. Many people use RVM mainly to sync legacy
applications with a specific ruby patch level and gem version to avoid
breakage. Also RVM deals with some edge cases where hand compiling may be a
bit more involved; for example rvm works great with FreeBSD and OSX where
different compilers and POSIX utilities are as minimal as they come.

~Stu

--

AR (aka AleiPhoenix)
Twitter: @AccelReality
Wikipedia: AleiPhoenix
weblog: weblog.areverie.org

8

Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks.
And yes you are right, 1.8 doen't require ruby. Thats how I build 2.0 the
first time.

···

2013/6/14 AR (aka AleiPhoenix) <aleiphoenix@gmail.com>

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:06:23AM +0900, Stu wrote:
> What do you mean my minimal? I installed Ruby 2.1 on my Funtoo laptop the
> other day by hand. Simply set up my own environment. Also do this with
some
> scheme interpreters and so forth. Many people use RVM mainly to sync
legacy
> applications with a specific ruby patch level and gem version to avoid
> breakage. Also RVM deals with some edge cases where hand compiling may
be a
> bit more involved; for example rvm works great with FreeBSD and OSX where
> different compilers and POSIX utilities are as minimal as they come.
>
> ~Stu
>

I doubt whether a *executable host ruby* is required for build ruby, So I
wondered.

I've tried to compile 1.9.2-p320 and 2.0.0-p195 without any problems (both
are simplly configure and make), but...

When I ran make distclean then configure and make, it complained about
'executable host ruby is required. use --with-baseruby option'.

I was starting realize that there must be something different before and
after running `make distclean`, so I diffed them.

diff -dru ruby-2.0.0-p195/ ruby-2.0.0-p195.distcleaned/

Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: encdb.h
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195/ext/ripper: y.output
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: golf_prelude.c
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: insns.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: insns_info.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: known_errors.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: node_name.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: optinsn.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: opt_sc.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: optunifs.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: .revision.time
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: transdb.h
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: vm.inc
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: vmtc.inc

Looks like some files have to be generated using a *existing ruby*. and
the source tarball already included them (for instance, known_errors.inc,
it's from template/known_errors.inc.tmpl, written in erb). When running
make distclean, those files are just be cleaned out. this should be the
reason.

Anyway, according to some google answers, building 1.8.x which doesn't
require a existing ruby, then using --baseruby should do the trick.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

--

AR (aka AleiPhoenix)
Twitter: @AccelReality
Wikipedia: AleiPhoenix
weblog: weblog.areverie.org