How do I remove Ruby 1.8.5 from linux? I have built it from source.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Citát Christopher Latif <christopherl@bredband.net>:
How do I remove Ruby 1.8.5 from linux? I have built it from source.
With Great Difficulty (tm).
If the build system supports it, you could try "make uninstall" in the source
directory.
Barring that, manually remove anything that seems ruby-related from
/usr/local/.
And in the future, use something like GNU stow for source installs if you plan
to uninstall them.
David Vallner
How do I remove Ruby 1.8.5 from linux? I have built it from source.
I don't know how to remove ruby. However I just want to share a
great tool with you that helps avoiding just this situation.
http://www.gnu.org/software/stow/
the installation procedure is slightly longer when installing,
but easy when uninstalling.
this is the typical install procedure
cd ~/stow
mkdir leopard
cd ~/leopard/src
./configure --prefix=/home/user/stow/leopard
make
make install
cd ~/stow
stow leopard
this is the uninstall procedure
···
On 12/21/06, Christopher Latif <christopherl@bredband.net> wrote:
cd ~/stow
stow -D vista
--
Simon Strandgaard
http://opcoders.com/
For the few packages, I build myself (I'm a debian user), I install
them in a separated directory in /opt and I setup by hand my env
variables. When I want to remove it, I just remove the directory.
I'm convenient with that but I think it's not really scalable and it's
not a pain only because there are not to much dependencies.
I should consider to try the stow alternative and have a look at
gentoo packaging policy too.
Cheers,
···
On 12/21/06, Christopher Latif <christopherl@bredband.net> wrote:
How do I remove Ruby 1.8.5 from linux? I have built it from source.
--
Nicolas Desprès
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
How do I remove Ruby 1.8.5 from linux? I have built it from source.
I don't know how to remove ruby. However I just want to share a
great tool with you that helps avoiding just this situation.
Stow - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
This is very slick. Thanks for the tip.
the installation procedure is slightly longer when installing,
but easy when uninstalling.this is the typical install procedure
> cd ~/stow
> mkdir leopard
> cd ~/leopard/src
> ./configure --prefix=/home/user/stow/leopard
> make
> make install
> cd ~/stow
> stow leopardthis is the uninstall procedure
> cd ~/stow
> stow -D vista
Man, people just never let up. Even at Christmas!
···
On 12/21/06, Christopher Latif <christopherl@bredband.net> wrote:
--
James Britt
"A principle or axiom is of no value without the rules for applying it."
- Len Bullard
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
How do I remove Ruby 1.8.5 from linux? I have built it from source.
I don't know how to remove ruby. However I just want to share a
great tool with you that helps avoiding just this situation.
Stow - GNU Project - Free Software Foundationthe installation procedure is slightly longer when installing,
but easy when uninstalling.this is the typical install procedure
> cd ~/stow
> mkdir leopard
> cd ~/leopard/src
> ./configure --prefix=/home/user/stow/leopard
> make
> make install
> cd ~/stow
> stow leopardthis is the uninstall procedure
> cd ~/stow
> stow -D vista
Nearly all Linux distributions -- at least the widely used ones -- have package management systems, and nearly all of them include a way to get the most recent Ruby from a package repository. So it should be simple. I've never heard of (or needed) stow.
By the way, at least the three major package management systems -- yum(Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS and some others), apt(Debian/Ubuntu and others) and Portage(Gentoo) have source packages in the repository, and installing a package from source is as easy (but takes longer) as installing a pre-compiled binary. So the only reason for a direct download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack upon Ruby itself.
···
On 12/21/06, Christopher Latif <christopherl@bredband.net> wrote:
--
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, FBG, AB, PTA, PGS, MS, MNLP, NST, ACMC(P)
http://borasky-research.blogspot.com/
If God had meant for carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
Well, that and you want to use the latest security release that came
out a couple weeks ago - and it hasn't made it into the package
repositories yet.
- Rob
···
On 12/21/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
> On 12/21/06, Christopher Latif <christopherl@bredband.net> wrote:
>> How do I remove Ruby 1.8.5 from linux? I have built it from source.
>
> I don't know how to remove ruby. However I just want to share a
> great tool with you that helps avoiding just this situation.
> Stow - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
>
> the installation procedure is slightly longer when installing,
> but easy when uninstalling.
>
> this is the typical install procedure
> > cd ~/stow
> > mkdir leopard
> > cd ~/leopard/src
> > ./configure --prefix=/home/user/stow/leopard
> > make
> > make install
> > cd ~/stow
> > stow leopard
>
> this is the uninstall procedure
> > cd ~/stow
> > stow -D vista
>
Nearly all Linux distributions -- at least the widely used ones -- have
package management systems, and nearly all of them include a way to get
the most recent Ruby from a package repository. So it should be simple.
I've never heard of (or needed) stow.By the way, at least the three major package management systems --
yum(Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS and some others), apt(Debian/Ubuntu and
others) and Portage(Gentoo) have source packages in the repository, and
installing a package from source is as easy (but takes longer) as
installing a pre-compiled binary. So the only reason for a direct
download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack upon
Ruby itself.
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
So the only reason for a direct
download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack upon
Ruby itself.
Or avoid the searing pain that is Debian deconstructivism.
David Vallner
Rob Sanheim wrote:
···
On 12/21/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
By the way, at least the three major package management systems --
yum(Red Hat/Fedora/CentOS and some others), apt(Debian/Ubuntu and
others) and Portage(Gentoo) have source packages in the repository, and
installing a package from source is as easy (but takes longer) as
installing a pre-compiled binary. So the only reason for a direct
download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack upon
Ruby itself.Well, that and you want to use the latest security release that came
out a couple weeks ago - and it hasn't made it into the package
repositories yet.
If that happens, I want to switch my distro to something more secure. SCNR 
Benjamin
David Vallner wrote:
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
So the only reason for a direct
download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack upon
Ruby itself.Or avoid the searing pain that is Debian deconstructivism.
Could you state precisely what you mean under this ? As I participate
to debian developing, there might be things I could help with in here ;-)...
Vince
···
--
Vincent Fourmond, PhD student
http://vincent.fourmond.neuf.fr/
:~$ dpkg -l |grep ruby
ii libdbm-ruby1.8 1.8.4-5 DBM interface for Ruby 1.8
ii libgdbm-ruby1. 1.8.4-5 GDBM interface for Ruby 1.8
ii libruby1.8 1.8.4-5 Libraries necessary to run Ruby 1.8
ii libruby1.8-dbg 1.8.4-5 Debugging symbols for Ruby 1.8
ii libtcltk-ruby1 1.8.4-5 Tcl/Tk interface for Ruby 1.8
ii ruby1.8 1.8.4-5 Interpreter of object-oriented scripting lan
ii ruby1.8-dev 1.8.4-5 Header files for compiling extension modules
ii ruby1.8-elisp 1.8.4-5 ruby-mode for Emacsen
ii ruby1.8-exampl 1.8.4-5 Examples for Ruby 1.8
···
On 12/21/06, Vincent Fourmond <vincent.fourmond@9online.fr> wrote:
David Vallner wrote:
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> So the only reason for a direct
>> download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack upon
>> Ruby itself.
>>
>
> Or avoid the searing pain that is Debian deconstructivism.Could you state precisely what you mean under this ? As I participate
to debian developing, there might be things I could help with in here
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
David Vallner wrote:
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
So the only reason for a direct
download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack upon
Ruby itself.Or avoid the searing pain that is Debian deconstructivism.
Could you state precisely what you mean under this ? As I participate
to debian developing, there might be things I could help with in here ;-)...
HINT: A "standard ruby distribution" metapackage is a Good Idea. Name it
"ruby-full" or something if you will.
David Vallner
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
Could you state precisely what you mean under this ? As I participate
to debian developing, there might be things I could help with in here:~$ dpkg -l |grep ruby
ii libdbm-ruby1.8 1.8.4-5 DBM interface for Ruby 1.8
ii libgdbm-ruby1. 1.8.4-5 GDBM interface for Ruby 1.8
ii libruby1.8 1.8.4-5 Libraries necessary to run Ruby 1.8
ii libruby1.8-dbg 1.8.4-5 Debugging symbols for Ruby 1.8
ii libtcltk-ruby1 1.8.4-5 Tcl/Tk interface for Ruby 1.8
ii ruby1.8 1.8.4-5 Interpreter of object-oriented
scripting lan
ii ruby1.8-dev 1.8.4-5 Header files for compiling extension
modules
ii ruby1.8-elisp 1.8.4-5 ruby-mode for Emacsen
ii ruby1.8-exampl 1.8.4-5 Examples for Ruby 1.8
I see your point, but for instance, you wouldn't want to pull in
database dependencies when you don't actually need any databases, or
even worse tk/x.org dependencies for a purely remote server... Do you
know a better way to do so ?
Vince
···
--
Vincent Fourmond, PhD student
http://vincent.fourmond.neuf.fr/
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
David Vallner wrote:
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> So the only reason for a direct
>> download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack
upon
>> Ruby itself.
>>
>
> Or avoid the searing pain that is Debian deconstructivism.Could you state precisely what you mean under this ? As I participate
to debian developing, there might be things I could help with in here:~$ dpkg -l |grep ruby
ii libdbm-ruby1.8 1.8.4-5 DBM interface for Ruby 1.8
ii libgdbm-ruby1. 1.8.4-5 GDBM interface for Ruby 1.8
ii libruby1.8 1.8.4-5 Libraries necessary to run Ruby 1.8
ii libruby1.8-dbg 1.8.4-5 Debugging symbols for Ruby 1.8
ii libtcltk-ruby1 1.8.4-5 Tcl/Tk interface for Ruby 1.8
ii ruby1.8 1.8.4-5 Interpreter of object-oriented
scripting lan
ii ruby1.8-dev 1.8.4-5 Header files for compiling extension
modules
ii ruby1.8-elisp 1.8.4-5 ruby-mode for Emacsen
ii ruby1.8-exampl 1.8.4-5 Examples for Ruby 1.8
Bindings for standard extensions I can bear with.
irb / erb not being at least a suggested package is obscene, however.
Personally, I'd put parts of the "standard distribution" that don't
involve bindings to libraries (and therefore pull in those libraries
along) at least as recommended, and having them suggested, as well as
listing packages built from ruby-defaults as at least suggested to the
ruby and ruby-1.8 package. (Sans the virtual packages that that package
implements.) I'm still uncertain about having the readline binding as
recommended, since more or less, a) everyone has readline anyway, b)
everyone wants to use it in irb anyway. (For given values of everyone.)
That way, with how at least aptitude behaves, setting the current ruby
on install would get you with at least something close enough to what
building from source and using the one-click installer gets you - e.g.
the reflex to drop into irb is satisfied. And the spurious "argh forgot
dependencies again" would get ever so annoying if they were at least
listed in one place in a package manager instead of having to search for
them.
David Vallner
···
On 12/21/06, Vincent Fourmond <vincent.fourmond@9online.fr> wrote:
David Vallner wrote:
Vincent Fourmond wrote:
David Vallner wrote:
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
So the only reason for a direct
download and install of Ruby 1.8.5 is if you actually want to hack upon
Ruby itself.Or avoid the searing pain that is Debian deconstructivism.
Could you state precisely what you mean under this ? As I participate
to debian developing, there might be things I could help with in here ;-)...HINT: A "standard ruby distribution" metapackage is a Good Idea. Name it
"ruby-full" or something if you will.
Heh ! You had my idea at the same time !!!
Cheers, I think we came up to something, there. I'll forward this.
Thanks !
Vince
···
--
Vincent Fourmond, PhD student
http://vincent.fourmond.neuf.fr/
I'm not totally sold on the idea that the package should be
drastically modified from the upstream. It adds support load to the
upstream maintainers.
However, if we assume that that goal is worth attaining, I think
Gentoo has the best implementation of it. You just set a flag saying
'no Tk', or 'no gdbm', and the package is created without those
features.
I think subtraction makes more sense than addition here. The Debian
Ruby packages have been the cause of countless hours of free support
here and on other Ruby-related mailing lists. 'Catastrophic' is not
too large a word here, in my opinion.
···
On 12/21/06, Vincent Fourmond <vincent.fourmond@9online.fr> wrote:
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
>> Could you state precisely what you mean under this ? As I participate
>> to debian developing, there might be things I could help with in here
>
> :~$ dpkg -l |grep ruby
> ii libdbm-ruby1.8 1.8.4-5 DBM interface for Ruby 1.8
> ii libgdbm-ruby1. 1.8.4-5 GDBM interface for Ruby 1.8
> ii libruby1.8 1.8.4-5 Libraries necessary to run Ruby 1.8
> ii libruby1.8-dbg 1.8.4-5 Debugging symbols for Ruby 1.8
> ii libtcltk-ruby1 1.8.4-5 Tcl/Tk interface for Ruby 1.8
> ii ruby1.8 1.8.4-5 Interpreter of object-oriented
> scripting lan
> ii ruby1.8-dev 1.8.4-5 Header files for compiling extension
> modules
> ii ruby1.8-elisp 1.8.4-5 ruby-mode for Emacsen
> ii ruby1.8-exampl 1.8.4-5 Examples for Ruby 1.8I see your point, but for instance, you wouldn't want to pull in
database dependencies when you don't actually need any databases, or
even worse tk/x.org dependencies for a purely remote server... Do you
know a better way to do so ?
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
I think subtraction makes more sense than addition here. The Debian
Ruby packages have been the cause of countless hours of free support
here and on other Ruby-related mailing lists. 'Catastrophic' is not
too large a word here, in my opinion.
Substraction is nearly impossible with the way debian packages are
handled now. That would be a valuable addition to the project, but a
long term one.
In my [debian developper] opinion, it is not possible to merge the
packages you mentionned. But it would be possible to have a ruby-full
package that woul install all the packages that expect to make up a full
ruby distribution. Would that cheer you up ? You would have only one
package to select (but still many automatically installed). I'll forward
the idea to the debian ruby team (some of which are probably reading
this already...)
Vince
···
--
Vincent Fourmond, PhD student
http://vincent.fourmond.neuf.fr/
Yes, that would be awesome.
However, I think it should be called 'ruby', and the existing package
be renamed 'ruby-runtime' or something else similar but consistent
with existing naming schemes.
People seem to almost universally expect "apt-get install ruby" to
give them irb, rdoc, ri, and the ability to install extensions.
Virtually any change would be for the better, though.
···
On 12/21/06, Vincent Fourmond <vincent.fourmond@9online.fr> wrote:
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
> I think subtraction makes more sense than addition here. The Debian
> Ruby packages have been the cause of countless hours of free support
> here and on other Ruby-related mailing lists. 'Catastrophic' is not
> too large a word here, in my opinion.Substraction is nearly impossible with the way debian packages are
handled now. That would be a valuable addition to the project, but a
long term one.In my [debian developper] opinion, it is not possible to merge the
packages you mentionned. But it would be possible to have a ruby-full
package that woul install all the packages that expect to make up a full
ruby distribution. Would that cheer you up ? You would have only one
package to select (but still many automatically installed). I'll forward
the idea to the debian ruby team (some of which are probably reading
this already...)
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
Yes, that would be awesome.
However, I think it should be called 'ruby', and the existing package
be renamed 'ruby-runtime' or something else similar but consistent
with existing naming schemes.
That would break too many things, so don't count on it. (like building
of packages and the like, nasty).
People seem to almost universally expect "apt-get install ruby" to
give them irb, rdoc, ri, and the ability to install extensions.
A small improvement in the description of the ruby package should get
rid of 90% of the mistakes, I believe.
Virtually any change would be for the better, though.
The idea has been forwarded to the debian-ruby list. I would find it
hard to get it in time for etch now, but we can always dream.
Well, again, thanks for expressing you frustration, I hope it will
lead to something better in a (hopefully) close future. Cheers !
Vince
···
--
Vincent Fourmond, PhD student
http://vincent.fourmond.neuf.fr/
Can you reinstall Ruby 1.8.5, if you built it from source,
using a Debian based Linux.
Because I accidently removed the configure script file from source, I
now I need it.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.