Asp Forum - rubygem setup.rb failing

Michael Satterwhite

12/17/2006 5:38:00 AM

I'm having to setup multiple machines, and I've got a new problem (at
least each time my problem is new ... I'm not repeating the old ones)

I've compiled ruby and installed it - I've put it into /usr/local/bin,
if that's a problem, I can redo it to whereever. Note that I didn't see
any errors in the ruby compile / install

Next was an attempt to install rubygems. I ran
ruby setup.rb

from the directory with rubygems. It starts out OK, then I get
-------------------------
/usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i686-linux/syck.so:
/usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i686-linux/syck.so: undefined symbol:
__stack_chk_fail_local - /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i686-linux/syck.so
(LoadError)
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
`require'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/yaml/syck.rb:5
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
`gem_original_require'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
`require'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/yaml.rb:11
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
`gem_original_require'
from
/usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
`require'
from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/package.rb:6
... 11 levels...
from setup.rb:887:in `exec_install'
from setup.rb:705:in `invoke'
from setup.rb:674:in `invoke'
from setup.rb:1352
------------------------------------------

Either I'm missing something - or my ruby install wasn't as clean as it
looked. I looked at the source, and I thought that all I needed to do
was install the yaml and syck files onto the machine (I'm running
kubuntu) - but that didn't seem to do any good.

Would someone be so kind as to help here.

Thanks in advance
---Michael

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

4 Answers

James Britt

12/17/2006 6:02:00 AM

Michael Satterwhite wrote:

> ...
> Either I'm missing something - or my ruby install wasn't as clean as it
> looked. I looked at the source, and I thought that all I needed to do
> was install the yaml and syck files onto the machine (I'm running
> kubuntu) - but that didn't seem to do any good.
>

I've installed ruby and rubygems on Kubuntu recently. No links handy
off the top of my head, but Google for ruby+rails+rubygems+ubuntu.
There are few sites that give very nice apt-get instructions to ensure
you can correctly compile Ruby and get gems running.

The default install on Unbuntu is lacking some things needed by
Ruby/Rubygems. (zlib comes to mind, and I had a problem with ssh
recently as well.)

--
James Britt

"Inside every large system there's a small system trying to get out".
- Chet Hendrickson

Ara.T.Howard

12/17/2006 6:12:00 AM

Aaron Kulbe

12/17/2006 7:36:00 AM

On 12/16/06, Michael Satterwhite <michael@weblore.com> wrote:
> I'm having to setup multiple machines, and I've got a new problem (at
> least each time my problem is new ... I'm not repeating the old ones)
>
> I've compiled ruby and installed it - I've put it into /usr/local/bin,
> if that's a problem, I can redo it to whereever. Note that I didn't see
> any errors in the ruby compile / install
>
> Next was an attempt to install rubygems. I ran
> ruby setup.rb
>
> from the directory with rubygems. It starts out OK, then I get
> -------------------------
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i686-linux/syck.so:
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i686-linux/syck.so: undefined symbol:
> __stack_chk_fail_local - /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/i686-linux/syck.so
> (LoadError)
> from
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
> `require'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/yaml/syck.rb:5
> from
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
> `gem_original_require'
> from
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
> `require'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.8/yaml.rb:11
> from
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
> `gem_original_require'
> from
> /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:27:in
> `require'
> from /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/package.rb:6
> ... 11 levels...
> from setup.rb:887:in `exec_install'
> from setup.rb:705:in `invoke'
> from setup.rb:674:in `invoke'
> from setup.rb:1352
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Either I'm missing something - or my ruby install wasn't as clean as it
> looked. I looked at the source, and I thought that all I needed to do
> was install the yaml and syck files onto the machine (I'm running
> kubuntu) - but that didn't seem to do any good.
>
> Would someone be so kind as to help here.
>
> Thanks in advance
> ---Michael
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-....
>
>

http://www.linuxlooney.com/past/2006/8/15/installing_ruby_and...

I wrote this up, based on my experience. I hope it helps.

Cheers,

Aaron Kulbe

jon_banquer

4/15/2013 8:30:00 PM

On Apr 15, 1:20 pm, Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 23:44:00 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
> >news:jummm85qc9dug25c5n6g77ekmo5ro3jtfl@4ax.com...
>
> >>On Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:22:26 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net>
> >>wrote:
>
> ><snip>
> >>> A leftwing
> >>>"Study" on stopping this kind of thing showed that people with guns failed
> >>>to stop mass shootings, for data they used only incidents where people
> >>>with
> >>>guns failed and excluded data where the mass shooting was stopped or
> >>>prevented.
>
> >>Tell us about this "study."
> ><snip>
>
> >OK, but also read page 1 if you want to see the study that showed what
> >actually works.
>
> >http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/12/19/we-kno......
>
> >In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones
> >magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in
> >the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing
> >stopped by a civilian using a gun."
>
> >This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
>
> >The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an
> >armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings
> >where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter
> >wasn't stopped.
>
> >If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings,
> >shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass
> >murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
>
> >It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to
> >consider any cases where the weeds died.
>
> >In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded
> >by the Mother Jones' methodology:
>
> >-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia
> >shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China
> >Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed
> >off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead:
> >Zero.
>
> >-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded
> >restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two.
> >(I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)
>
> >-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a
> >professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition,
> >two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him.
> >Total dead: Three.
>
> >-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well
> >as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be
> >bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter,
> >holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.
>
> >-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at
> >his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant
> >principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at
> >the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.
>
> >-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being
> >held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the
> >gunman. Total dead: One.
>
> >By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher
> >casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech,
> >Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12
> >dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed);
> >public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little
> >girls).
>
> >All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting
> >killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.
>
> >If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by
> >reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only
> >one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other
> >hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell
> >with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other
> >policies.
>
> I'm going to stop this because you won't read the things you refer to,
> and you make me go read them to correct your many mistakes. Enough of
> that. This is the last time.
>
> Coulter slings her shit, as usual, attacking the Mother Jones study
> NOT because it's wrong, but because they did exactly what they said
> they were doing: examining mass shootings in public places. Coulter's
> bitch is that they didn't examine every shooting in America. That's a
> lot of shootings.
>
> They examined all 62 cases that fit what they said they were studying.
> Coulter pulls a few off the wall -- and gets them wrong. In most of
> those cases, the shooter was stopped NOT by an "armed citizen," but by
> a cop -- off-duty, or whatever.
>
> There is one in the list you quote that we know very well, because it
> was us here on RCM who dug up the facts. Ok, it was me. <g>
>
> The Appalachian School of Law shooting was not stopped by two ordinary
> "armed students." They were two cops -- one on the active roster in
> his town, and the other on leave from his department to attend
> classes. I talked to the chief of one of their departments myself. One
> of these "students" had handcuffs and a ballistic vest in the back
> seat of his car. Some "students," eh? Either they're trained cops, or
> they throw some wild and wooly keg parties at Appalachian. <g>
>
> Anyway, if you remember it, John Lott came here on RCM and discussed
> it with us...only he was using his sock-puppet name, "Mary Rosh." If
> you weren't here at the time (2002), you can read the whole thing
> here:
>
> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2003/01/30/ros...
>
> So the one case we know intimately, which you quoted, is shit.
> Probably some more of it is shit. And I'm sure you'll never read the
> extensive reporting on Mother Jones, because you won't like what you
> read.
>
> RD might be interested, though. It has a really interesting Excel
> file. <g>:
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-......
>
> You're on your own, Roger. I'm not going to chase you around the block
> to uncover the things you never read, and then expounded upon. Life is
> too short.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress

Ann Coulter?

"She's a fascist party doll" ... Richard Belzer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s...

comp.lang.ruby

rubygem setup.rb failing

Michael Satterwhite

James Britt

Ara.T.Howard

Aaron Kulbe

jon_banquer

x Login to ForumsZone