I have a confession. 'ri' has never worked for me, and I have never
tracked down the reason(s) why.
I have the following files on my system named ri... the first one is
the one in my path.
/usr/local/bin/ri
/usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/rdoc/ri
/usr/local/share/ri
/usr/src/self/ruby-1.8.1/bin/ri
/usr/src/self/ruby-1.8.1/lib/rdoc/ri
And that one doesn't even respond to -v, but --help says that it's
"alpha 0.1" which sounds ancient to me.
What's the shortest path from here to sanity?
Hal
Can't help you there, but to get ri working, I suggest (assuming you're running from a source distribution)
1. Delete everything on your system that has 'ri' in the path.
2. Do the same for rdoc
3. do a 'make install'
If you're installing from Curt's Window's installer, then uninstall the previous version and install his new one which has ri and rdoc configured correctly.
Cheers
Dave
···
On Jul 8, 2004, at 13:57, Hal Fulton wrote:
What's the shortest path from here to sanity?
Hal Fulton wrote:
I have a confession. 'ri' has never worked for me, and I have never
tracked down the reason(s) why.
I have the following files on my system named ri... the first one is
the one in my path.
/usr/local/bin/ri
/usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/rdoc/ri
/usr/local/share/ri
/usr/src/self/ruby-1.8.1/bin/ri
/usr/src/self/ruby-1.8.1/lib/rdoc/ri
And that one doesn't even respond to -v, but --help says that it's
"alpha 0.1" which sounds ancient to me.
What's the shortest path from here to sanity?
I grabbed the latest 1.8.2 source.
I ran the usual: autoconf, configure, make, make install.
ri failed.
I looked inside Makefile and see the target install-doc.
I ran make install-doc.
ri worked.
Not the most obvious path for me, but there you go.
James
Dave Thomas wrote:
What's the shortest path from here to sanity?
Can't help you there,
I asked for that, didn't I? 
"My mind is going, Dave..."
but to get ri working, I suggest (assuming you're running from a source distribution)
[snip]
OK, will try that.
If you're installing from Curt's Window's installer, then uninstall the previous version and install his new one which has ri and rdoc configured correctly.
I avoid Windows as much as possible these days. But I will get around
to reinstalling sometime soon. I'm glad for the work Curt has done, and
you and Andy prior to that.
Hal
···
On Jul 8, 2004, at 13:57, Hal Fulton wrote:
James Britt wrote:
Hal Fulton wrote:
What's the shortest path from here to sanity?
I grabbed the latest 1.8.2 source.
I ran the usual: autoconf, configure, make, make install.
ri failed.
I looked inside Makefile and see the target install-doc.
I ran make install-doc.
ri worked.
Not the most obvious path for me, but there you go.
I'm trying that now. Sounds like it should be added so that
it happens automagically.
Out of curiosity: Does 'make test' work for you? It fails
for me, but the build seems ok...
Hal
Perhaps you might mention that over on ruby-core...
Cheers
Dave
···
On Jul 8, 2004, at 14:40, James Britt wrote:
I ran make install-doc.
ri worked.
Not the most obvious path for me, but there you go.
Hal Fulton wrote:
but to get ri working, I suggest (assuming you're running from a source distribution)
[snip]
OK, will try that.
Hmm, doesn't work for me. I think I'll probably just switch to
1.8.2 or cvs and compile/install from scratch. Surely that will
fix it.
Hal
Hal Fulton wrote:
James Britt wrote:
Hal Fulton wrote:
What's the shortest path from here to sanity?
I grabbed the latest 1.8.2 source.
I ran the usual: autoconf, configure, make, make install.
ri failed.
I looked inside Makefile and see the target install-doc.
I ran make install-doc.
ri worked.
Not the most obvious path for me, but there you go.
I'm trying that now. Sounds like it should be added so that
it happens automagically.
Out of curiosity: Does 'make test' work for you? It fails
for me, but the build seems ok...
Hal
When you configure do a --enable-install-doc and then it will autoinstall as you build. Personally I think that should be the default and --disable-install-doc should be the option if say you were rapidly recompiling the ruby source.
Charles Comstock
>I ran make install-doc.
>ri worked.
>
>Not the most obvious path for me, but there you go.
I'm trying that now. Sounds like it should be added so that
it happens automagically.
Some of the core devels opposed that since they build several times a
day and don't want to waste time regenerating ri data files.
OTOH there could be another target with no ri docs for them...
Out of curiosity: Does 'make test' work for you? It fails
for me, but the build seems ok...
Works for me with a fairly old tarball (ruby 1.8.2 2004-06-28).
···
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 04:54:04AM +0900, Hal Fulton wrote:
--
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
All the existing 2.0.x kernels are to buggy for 2.1.x to be the
main goal.
-- Alan Cox
Dave Thomas wrote:
I ran make install-doc.
ri worked.
Not the most obvious path for me, but there you go.
Perhaps you might mention that over on ruby-core...
I just might. I believe there was previous discussion there on whether rdocs/ri should be installed by default or not; I'd vote Yes (and may have even said so at the time), but I don't recall what the counter arguments were.
James
···
On Jul 8, 2004, at 14:40, James Britt wrote:
Cheers
Dave
Charles Comstock wrote:
When you configure do a --enable-install-doc and then it will autoinstall as you build. Personally I think that should be the default and --disable-install-doc should be the option if say you were rapidly recompiling the ruby source.
I don't recall that even being mentioned when I did ./configure --help.
I had remembered something along those lines from a thread on ruby-core, but did not see any option listed to tell configure to do this.
James
Why not split Ruby into two distributions, the core Ruby binaries and
libraries needed to run Ruby scripts, and a developer distribution which
contains irb, ri, rdocs and anything else a Ruby developer would need.
Sean O'Dell
···
On Thursday 08 July 2004 15:46, James Britt wrote:
Dave Thomas wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2004, at 14:40, James Britt wrote:
>> I ran make install-doc.
>> ri worked.
>>
>> Not the most obvious path for me, but there you go.
>
> Perhaps you might mention that over on ruby-core...
I just might. I believe there was previous discussion there on whether
rdocs/ri should be installed by default or not; I'd vote Yes (and may
have even said so at the time), but I don't recall what the counter
arguments were.
Just to add another vote, I think it'd be really useful to have that
--enable-install-doc as the default.
Cameron
···
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 07:12:35 +0900, Charles Comstock <cc1@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
When you configure do a --enable-install-doc and then it will
autoinstall as you build. Personally I think that should be the default
and --disable-install-doc should be the option if say you were rapidly
recompiling the ruby source.
Mauricio Fernández wrote:
Some of the core devels opposed that since they build several times a
day and don't want to waste time regenerating ri data files.
OTOH there could be another target with no ri docs for them...
Right I understand why it would bother them, but it doesn't seem to hard to make it --disable-install-docs as a configure option and then everytime they do a new make they don't have that extra step.
Charles Comstock
James Britt wrote:
Charles Comstock wrote:
When you configure do a --enable-install-doc and then it will autoinstall as you build. Personally I think that should be the default and --disable-install-doc should be the option if say you were rapidly recompiling the ruby source.
I don't recall that even being mentioned when I did ./configure --help.
I had remembered something along those lines from a thread on ruby-core, but did not see any option listed to tell configure to do this.
But, indeed, it *is* there, last item in right before Optional Features.
James