C
Christopher Latif
How do I remove Ruby 1.8.5 from linux? I have built it from source.
D
david
Citát Christopher Latif said:
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
S
Simon Strandgaard
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
prompt> cd ~/stow
prompt> mkdir leopard
prompt> cd ~/leopard/src
prompt> ./configure --prefix=/home/user/stow/leopard
prompt> make
prompt> make install
prompt> cd ~/stow
prompt> stow leopard
this is the uninstall procedure
prompt> cd ~/stow
prompt> stow -D vista
J
James Britt
Simon said:
This is very slick. Thanks for the tip.
Man, people just never let up. Even at Christmas!
M
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky
Nearly all Linux distributions -- at least the widely used ones -- haveSimon said:
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.
R
Rob Sanheim
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
B
Benjamin Billian
Rob said:
If that happens, I want to switch my distro to something more secure.
SCNR
Benjamin
D
David Vallner
--------------enig5F3F4628D05CDCE270589AD4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Or avoid the searing pain that is Debian deconstructivism.
David Vallner
--------------enig5F3F4628D05CDCE270589AD4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFFiw9dy6MhrS8astoRAuviAJ45tLvKtaOl8jzNA2upWjLy/8fKuACdE1v8
SUr23Qn+Mc4NdCZ/YWwXY/s=
=MypD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig5F3F4628D05CDCE270589AD4--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky said:
Or avoid the searing pain that is Debian deconstructivism.
David Vallner
--------------enig5F3F4628D05CDCE270589AD4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFFiw9dy6MhrS8astoRAuviAJ45tLvKtaOl8jzNA2upWjLy/8fKuACdE1v8
SUr23Qn+Mc4NdCZ/YWwXY/s=
=MypD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enig5F3F4628D05CDCE270589AD4--
V
Vincent Fourmond
David said:
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
W
Wilson Bilkovich
:~$ 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
V
Vincent Fourmond
Wilson said:
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
W
Wilson Bilkovich
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.
D
David Vallner
--------------enigADD024E39FEE29F35177F3A7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
--------------enigADD024E39FEE29F35177F3A7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFFiyQUy6MhrS8astoRAkk5AJ9TGJ4RgdqH+Y/rReyh/oXa8no6gQCfZ5sF
9hiQF/fJqA/rFAWIU8cide4=
=H7Dt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigADD024E39FEE29F35177F3A7--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Wilson said:
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
--------------enigADD024E39FEE29F35177F3A7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFFiyQUy6MhrS8astoRAkk5AJ9TGJ4RgdqH+Y/rReyh/oXa8no6gQCfZ5sF
9hiQF/fJqA/rFAWIU8cide4=
=H7Dt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigADD024E39FEE29F35177F3A7--
D
David Vallner
--------------enigDB527A454980C42B8C191237
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HINT: A "standard ruby distribution" metapackage is a Good Idea. Name it
"ruby-full" or something if you will.
David Vallner
--------------enigDB527A454980C42B8C191237
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFFiyRZy6MhrS8astoRAtDlAJ4vsJarDwgn5cxMT+y4idou0cXCvwCfYBqi
MCULfGxo06PbYML/DNGm3xY=
=u1Rp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigDB527A454980C42B8C191237--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Vincent said:
HINT: A "standard ruby distribution" metapackage is a Good Idea. Name it
"ruby-full" or something if you will.
David Vallner
--------------enigDB527A454980C42B8C191237
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFFiyRZy6MhrS8astoRAtDlAJ4vsJarDwgn5cxMT+y4idou0cXCvwCfYBqi
MCULfGxo06PbYML/DNGm3xY=
=u1Rp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--------------enigDB527A454980C42B8C191237--
V
Vincent Fourmond
Wilson said:
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
V
Vincent Fourmond
David said:
Heh ! You had my idea at the same time !!!
Cheers, I think we came up to something, there. I'll forward this.
Thanks !
Vince
N
Nicolas Desprès
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,
--=20
Nicolas Despr=E8s
W
Wilson Bilkovich
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.
V
Vincent Fourmond
Wilson said:
That would break too many things, so don't count on it. (like building
of packages and the like, nasty).
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
C
Christopher Latif
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.
using a Debian based Linux.
Because I accidently removed the configure script file from source, I
now I need it.