[#25936] [Bug:1.9] [rubygems] $LOAD_PATH includes bin directory — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...>

Hi,

10 messages 2009/10/05

[#25943] Disabling tainting — Tony Arcieri <tony@...>

Would it make sense to have a flag passed to the interpreter on startup that

16 messages 2009/10/05

[#26028] [Bug #2189] Math.atanh(1) & Math.atanh(-1) should not raise an error — Marc-Andre Lafortune <redmine@...>

Bug #2189: Math.atanh(1) & Math.atanh(-1) should not raise an error

14 messages 2009/10/10

[#26222] [Bug #2250] IO::for_fd() objects' finalization dangerously closes underlying fds — Mike Pomraning <redmine@...>

Bug #2250: IO::for_fd() objects' finalization dangerously closes underlying fds

11 messages 2009/10/22

[#26244] [Bug #2258] Kernel#require inside rb_require() inside rb_protect() inside SysV context fails — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Bug #2258: Kernel#require inside rb_require() inside rb_protect() inside SysV context fails

24 messages 2009/10/22

[#26361] [Feature #2294] [PATCH] ruby_bind_stack() to embed Ruby in coroutine — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #2294: [PATCH] ruby_bind_stack() to embed Ruby in coroutine

42 messages 2009/10/27

[#26371] [Bug #2295] segmentation faults — tomer doron <redmine@...>

Bug #2295: segmentation faults

16 messages 2009/10/27

[ruby-core:26221] Re: RbConfig::...[prefix] not sensible on OS X 10.5?

From: Joshua ben Jore <twists@...>
Date: 2009-10-22 03:04:29 UTC
List: ruby-core #26221
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Aaron Patterson
<aaron@tenderlovemaking.com> wrote:
> Joshua ben Jore wrote:
>> Today, I found this points to a nonsensical location.
>>
>> require 'rbconfig'
>> ruby = File.join(
>> RbConfig::CONFIG['prefix'],
>> RbConfig::CONFIG['ruby_install_name'] + RbConfig::CONFIG['EXEEXT'] )
>> system "#{ruby} -e 1"
>>
>> prefix is /System/Library/Frameworks/Ruby.framework/Versions/1.8/usr
>> but should be /usr/bin. The interpreter needs a way to find itself
>> without trusting $PATH because there are multiple interpreters on the
>> same machine.
>>
>> Or... is it sensible to stash the original C argv[0] somewhere? Right
>> now we seem to ignore it.
>
> I think the "prefix" is correct. id you mean "bindir":

Oh, right. D'oh! I'd gotten this right before but um, apparently not
this time. :-( Sorry!

Josh

In This Thread

Prev Next