After installing a Ruby gem system-wide, the binary name of the gem is always appended with a ruby version. Am I doing something wrong?
I'm new to Ruby. So I was checking out some ruby vim plugins and some of them require to install some gems. So I installed the gem system-wide using sudo gem install rubocop for example, but after installation I was not able to execute the rubocop bin in terminal. Instead, I had to run rubocop.ruby2.5. Why is the ruby version always appended? How do I get rid of this? Might be a dumb question but I really appreciate some help. I checked a similar post Ruby gem names with appended ruby version but it didn't help me much. The following is the bin name and location. I'm using openSUSE and Ruby 2.5.3.
~ $ which rubocop.ruby2.5
/usr/bin/rubocop.ruby2.5
Whether or not RubyGems appends the Ruby version number to the executable name is governed by the --[no-]format-executable flag to gem install.
If you don't want the version suffix, you can either use
gem install --no-format-executable <somegem>
Or set this flag in one of your RubyGems configuration files.
My guess is that your Linux distribution has this configuration flag set for globally so that gem executables installed for different Ruby versions don't clobber each other.
Related
I am using puppet to install ruby 1.9.3 as the system ruby on an Ubuntu Trusty Vagrant container. I also install Bundler. I am told that "gem" is installed as part of the installation of ruby.
How do I know which versions of gem go with this version of ruby?
How do I know which versions of bundler go with this version of ruby?
Here is a fragment of puppet code:
$other_reqs = [
...
'ruby1.9.3',
'ruby-bundler',
'rubygems-integration',
...
]
package{ $other_reqs: ensure => 'installed'} -> Package['percona-toolkit']
The package declaration will default to using apt-get to download packages. Clearly the line with 'ruby1.9.3' will get the 1.9.3 version of ruby. It also installed gem 1.8.23. Is this a compatible version of gem? How do I know?
The line with 'ruby-bundler' installed Bundler version 1.3.5. Is this a compatible version of Bundler? Or should I indicate a specific version in my requirements array? Where ought I look to find this information?
It might be helpful if you indicate the problem, or what you're trying to do. Nevertheless:
gem is a command that is built-in in ruby from 1.9+, so whatever comes installed with Ruby should be fine.
bunlder is a RubyGem, normally installed by doing gem install bundler. You can specify the version by doing gem install -v <version>. Either it gets installed correctly or you get an error. Can you install bundler doing that?
And lastly, unless you need it for a specific reason, 1.9 is very old :)
I have two scripts which require the same version of Ruby. However, each script also requires a DIFFERENT version of a gem (nokogiri). One of the scripts will run with both versions of nokogiri (1.6.2.1 and 1.6.1). However the other script will ONLY run with version 1.6.1; and if 1.6.2.1 is installed, the script will not execute normally.
I know how to install multiple versions of Ruby with rbenv. But is it possible to install multiple instances of the SAME version of Ruby (2.1.2)? If so, how?
Make a local copy of a ruby-installer definition file using a custom name.
$ cp ~/.rbenv/plugins/ruby-build/share/ruby-build/2.1.5 2.1.5-nokogiri161
Install this as a custom definition file, no edits required.
$ rbenv install ./2.1.5-nokogiri161
Now you have a ruby version with a custom name and you can install custom gems on it.
$ rbenv shell 2.1.5-nokogiri161
$ gem install nokogiri -v 1.6.1
This is also useful for installing ruby versions with custom build flags. For example, a debug build with no compiler optimizations.
$ cp ~/.rbenv/plugins/ruby-build/share/ruby-build/2.1.5 2.1.5-debug
$ RUBY_CONFIGURE_OPTS="optflags=-O0" rbenv install ./2.1.5-debug
$ rbenv shell 2.1.5-debug
1) Use rvm instead of rbenv, and using it feature called 'gemsets' you could use different versions of gems for one version of ruby
rvm 2.1.1
rvm gemset create first second
rvm 2.1.1#first
gem install nokogiri -v 1.6.1
rvm 2.1.1#second
gem install nokogiri -v 1.6.2
2) or you can use bundler
gem install bundler
/dir_1/Gemfile
source 'http://rubygems.org'
gem 'nokogiri', '1.6.1'
/dir_2/Gemfile
source 'http://rubygems.org'
gem 'nokogiri', '1.6.2'
I see two options:
You could have different Gemfiles and let bundler take care of setting the right gem-version. If the scripts are in different directories, it should be no problem.
You could use rbenv-gemset to have separate gem-environments
There are undoubtly more, but those two seem the easiest for your setup.
Multiple instances of the same ruby is possible (regardless of the tool installing them) by just compiling them manually, with a different --prefix configured.
download the source
extract it
./configure --prefix=~/.rbenv/version/2.1.2-tSquirrel
make
sudo make install
This is how the rbenv-docs propose to achieve this.
You could also rename the current "2.1.2"-directory and then use ruby-build to install 2.1.2 again.
"Versions" in rbenv are just directories in ~/.rbenv/versions, I would guess you cold just rename/copy installed version and when you "select" version with "rbenv shell" you just declare from which directory you want to use binaries.
I am trying to install Compass and Jekyll, but the gem commands fail:
$ gem update
/usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1/psych.rb:154:in `parse': (<unknown>): couldn't parse YAML at line 2 column 0 (Psych::SyntaxError)
From googling, I see that Ruby has updated it's YAML parser and that gems need to update their config/boot.rb file, but that doesn't help me unless I fork every gem that I install.
Here is my .gemrc, it is the only place where I could have screwed something up:
gemhome: /home/dan/.gems
gempath:
- /home/dan/.gems
Ruby version: ruby 1.8.7 (2011-06-30 patchlevel 352) [x86_64-linux], installed using apt-get on Ubuntu.
What do I have to do to start installing ruby gems? I know almost nothing about ruby, I just want to install some software that is distributed as gems.
update
Looking at my question, I see that the ruby version in the error message and ruby --version are different. How do the ruby command and the gem command decide which version to use? Does it matter that they are different? update: I now have only ruby 1.9.3. The problem must be with my .gemrc
update
Removing my .gemrc and installing as root works. What is wrong with my .gemrc?
The Yaml syntax is valid. (See http://yamllint.com/).
However, the problem lies in the variables names gemhome and gempath - they are supposed to be GEM_PATH and GEM_HOME.
See What's the difference between GEM_HOME and GEM_PATH? for more info.
You could type in gem env before and after removing the .gemrc file and you should see a difference in the gem path.
The gem configuration file is not really need in your case since your GEM_PATH/ GEM_HOME don't need to be changed from the defaults...
To install gems below your home directory, use the --user-install parameter:
gem install <gem> --user-install
Mentioned in the ruby gem FAQ. A similar question suggest using RVM to manage gems. It installs gems below the home dir.
The following code lives inside my rails app's root folder and daemonizes/runs myserver.rb.
# myserver_control.rb
require 'rubygems'
require 'daemons' # causes 'no such file to load -- daemons' error since gem reinstall with rvm
#options = {
# options defined
}
Daemons.run('myserver.rb', #options)
It was working just fine until I installed rvm and now it can't seem to find the daemons gem. I have a feeling maybe the above is searching for the daemons gem in a system wide folder somewhere? Instead of being able to use the rvm installed daemons gem? How do I install the daemons gem on a system level where it can find it? OR how do I make it so it can find the rvm installed gem?
Currently I do not even have a 'system' gem set. How would I install gems on the system level after having already installed rvm?
If wishing to use the system ruby and gems you can type in
rvm use system
which will allow to use the system installed ruby and gems, but I think this kinda of defeats the purpose of using RVM I would instead install a default ruby in RVM and install any gems into that. To set a default Ruby after you have installed it, type this
rvm --default use 1.9.2
Edit
Based on comment your problem lies with running sudo, this creates a new subshell and different instance of rvm
RVM uses a concept of gemsets, which are unique groups of gems that you can use, most often specific to ruby versions (although you can make them specific to applications or global).
RVM will change your GEM_HOME when changing ruby versions, which tells ru ygems where your gems are installed. So when you installed RVM, you created a new blank gemset and RVM told rubygems to use that.
This is because gems are not always cross compatible between rubygems.
However, if you just writing rails apps, you should ignore the above for now and use bundler. Place 'gem "daemon"' I am your Gemfile and run bundle update from your app root directory.
Bundle helps you maintain gems on a per app basis, which means your app won't break if you upgrade a gem somewhere else. Using it and knowing how it works is best practices. Good luck.
I have installed Ruby 1.9.2 from source. But it seems there is some trouble recognizing the bundler gem which I have already installed.
My /etc/environment file:
PATH="/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games:/usr/local/ruby/bin"
It looks like my gems are in /usr/local/ruby/gems/1.9.1/gems/.
In my rails application when I attempt to run sudo bundle install I get an error:
sudo: bundle: command not found
Also, why do the directories say 1.9.1?
Type which ruby to see the path your system thinks ruby is in.
Did you use a --prefix=... option for configure when you set up the configuration? Normally Ruby from source wouldn't be in /usr/local/ruby/bin. The Ruby executable would be in /usr/local/bin/ruby, but that is not how you'd set up your PATH to use it, so that looks suspicious. Notice that your path already contains /usr/local/bin so if Ruby installed into the normal location for a source-installation, that path will pick it up and your final search of /usr/local/bin/ruby will be wrong and unnecessary.
If you installed the gem before you installed the new version of Ruby then the gem would be part of the previous installation, not the current one, and wouldn't be visible to it. They're separate installs.
Unless you are trying to do a system-wide install for multiple users there is no real reason to compile from source and allow it to install to /usr/local/bin. I highly recommend installing RVM, then letting it install any Ruby versions into RVM's ~/.rvm sandbox. Gems will also be installed relative to the currently enabled RVM controlled ruby, which is a really good thing.