[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Definitive method for managing ruby installations

Carl Youngblood

10/9/2004 4:54:00 AM

It seems like most ruby programmers build and install ruby from
source. At least that is what I gather from previous comments made on
the list. I'm wondering what the best way of keeping one's ruby
installation up-to-date is, considering that with each new stable
release one would have to reinstall all add-ons. Granted, the new
package management utilities like rpa and gems seem to have alleviated
this problem somewhat, but it still seems like there should be a more
automated way to upgrade one's installation without having to remember
everything that was installed before. What do you guys do?

Thanks,
Carl
12 Answers

T. Onoma

10/9/2004 5:12:00 AM

0

On Saturday 09 October 2004 12:54 am, Carl Youngblood wrote:
| It seems like most ruby programmers build and install ruby from
| source. At least that is what I gather from previous comments made on
| the list. I'm wondering what the best way of keeping one's ruby
| installation up-to-date is, considering that with each new stable
| release one would have to reinstall all add-ons. Granted, the new
| package management utilities like rpa and gems seem to have alleviated
| this problem somewhat, but it still seems like there should be a more
| automated way to upgrade one's installation without having to remember
| everything that was installed before. What do you guys do?
|
| Thanks,
| Carl

Might Ruby itself be a Gem one day?

T.

Mathieu Blondel

10/9/2004 8:16:00 AM

0


> release one would have to reinstall all add-ons. Granted, the new
> package management utilities like rpa and gems seem to have alleviated
> this problem somewhat, but it still seems like there should be a more
> automated way to upgrade one's installation without having to remember
> everything that was installed before.

I have a question about rpa-base and gems. What's the difference between
the two ? Can't there exist conflicts if we use the two ?

Thanks,
MB

Chad Fowler

10/9/2004 10:44:00 AM

0

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 17:19:41 +0900, Mathieu Blondel
<matt@enlevemoica.ffworld.com> wrote:
>
> > release one would have to reinstall all add-ons. Granted, the new
> > package management utilities like rpa and gems seem to have alleviated
> > this problem somewhat, but it still seems like there should be a more
> > automated way to upgrade one's installation without having to remember
> > everything that was installed before.
>
> I have a question about rpa-base and gems. What's the difference between
> the two ? Can't there exist conflicts if we use the two ?
>

There are a lot of differences between the two under the covers, but
they attempt to essentially do the same thing. You can find more of a
discussion in the ruby-talk archives.

They can coexist peacefully.

Chad

James Gray

10/9/2004 4:24:00 PM

0

On Oct 9, 2004, at 5:43 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:

> They can coexist peacefully.

Just curious. I think I read in the Pickaxe II that RubyGems uses
library stubs by default now? (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.)
Would you need to shut this behavior off if you use both, to keep it
from clobbering an RPA installed library?

James Edward Gray II

Dick Davies

10/9/2004 7:35:00 PM

0

* James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> [1024 17:24]:
> On Oct 9, 2004, at 5:43 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:
>
> >They can coexist peacefully.
>
> Just curious. I think I read in the Pickaxe II that RubyGems uses
> library stubs by default now? (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.)
> Would you need to shut this behavior off if you use both, to keep it
> from clobbering an RPA installed library?

Last I heard that had been taken out again, largely for that reason.

--
Yeah, well I'm gonna build my own lunar space lander! With blackjack aaaaannd Hookers!
Actually, forget the space lander, and the blackjack. Ahhhh forget the whole thing! - Bender
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns

Jim Weirich

10/9/2004 8:09:00 PM

0

James Edward Gray II wrote:
> On Oct 9, 2004, at 5:43 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:
>
>> They can coexist peacefully.
>
>
> Just curious. I think I read in the Pickaxe II that RubyGems uses
> library stubs by default now? (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.) Would
> you need to shut this behavior off if you use both, to keep it from
> clobbering an RPA installed library?

RubyGems 0.8.0 and later do not use library stubs. They were abandoned
because they prevented gems from managing multiple simultaneous versions
of a library.

However, if you install the *same* library with both RPA and Gems, it's
a toss up one which one will actually be chosen at runtime.

--
-- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org http://onest...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)

Mauricio Fernández

10/9/2004 11:08:00 PM

0

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 05:09:21AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:
> James Edward Gray II wrote:
> >On Oct 9, 2004, at 5:43 AM, Chad Fowler wrote:
> >
> >>They can coexist peacefully.
> >
> >
> >Just curious. I think I read in the Pickaxe II that RubyGems uses
> >library stubs by default now? (Please, correct me if I'm wrong.) Would
> >you need to shut this behavior off if you use both, to keep it from
> >clobbering an RPA installed library?
>
> RubyGems 0.8.0 and later do not use library stubs. They were abandoned
> because they prevented gems from managing multiple simultaneous versions
> of a library.

AFAIK RubyGems pre-0.8.0 could manage simultaneous versions fine.
I believed that the main problem with library stubs was... the stubs
themselves, because they were essentially unmanaged and could be
overwritten when installing manually etc (rpa-base never overwrites
anything it doesn't own unless told to).

> However, if you install the *same* library with both RPA and Gems, it's
> a toss up one which one will actually be chosen at runtime.

The RubyGems version will always be chosen if the "require hack"
(-rubygems or RUBYOPT=rubygems) is in place, if I have understood the
code correctly.

--
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

Jim Weirich

10/9/2004 11:51:00 PM

0

Mauricio Fernández wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 05:09:21AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:
>>RubyGems 0.8.0 and later do not use library stubs. They were abandoned
>>because they prevented gems from managing multiple simultaneous versions
>>of a library.
>
> AFAIK RubyGems pre-0.8.0 could manage simultaneous versions fine.

Right. Prevented was too strong. But they didn't interact well with
RubyGems multiversion support. So they are gone.

> I believed that the main problem with library stubs was... the stubs
> themselves, because they were essentially unmanaged and could be
> overwritten when installing manually etc (rpa-base never overwrites
> anything it doesn't own unless told to).
>
>>However, if you install the *same* library with both RPA and Gems, it's
>>a toss up one which one will actually be chosen at runtime.
>
> The RubyGems version will always be chosen if the "require hack"
> (-rubygems or RUBYOPT=rubygems) is in place, if I have understood the
> code correctly.

And if they don't load rubygems, then the RPA version would be used.
Hence, it's a toss-up (not a random one, but one relaying on information
I didn't have ... sorry, should have been more specific).

--
-- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org http://onest...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)

Aredridel

10/11/2004 1:26:00 AM

0

I use RPMs. Cleanest way on my RPM-based systems.

Curne) Simon Conrad-Armes

10/11/2004 9:00:00 AM

0


On Oct 9, 2004, at 6:54 AM, Carl Youngblood wrote:

> It seems like most ruby programmers build and install ruby from
> source. At least that is what I gather from previous comments made on
> the list. I'm wondering what the best way of keeping one's ruby
> installation up-to-date is, considering that with each new stable
> release one would have to reinstall all add-ons. Granted, the new
> package management utilities like rpa and gems seem to have alleviated
> this problem somewhat, but it still seems like there should be a more
> automated way to upgrade one's installation without having to remember
> everything that was installed before. What do you guys do?
>
> Thanks,
> Carl

Sitting on an OS X box (darwin), I make a package from source of
ruby-1.8.2-preview2 as a staged install. Everything else I install as
gems or direct install. I wish everything was gems, but sometimes I
have to nitpick the files out when I want to remove them. A bit of a
mess but my best option in lack of ruby pkgsys unification.

/Curne