From: Markus <markus@...>
Date: 2004-09-28T12:33:12+09:00
Subject: Re: RPM of Ruby 1.8.x

      I know I got micro-flamed for making this same suggestion earlier
in this same thread, but why not compile from source?  It's quick, it's
easy, and it is a lot cleaner than trying to force RPMs to go where they
aren't happy.  If you are in a multi-system production environment you
probably ought to have sufficently standardised builds to do this once &
make & push your own RPMs internally.  In any case, in such an
environment you probably should be able to rebuild everything you run
from source anyway, so you can apply patches etc. in a timely manner.

     -- MarkusQ

P.S. Note to the people who objected the last time I offered this
suggestion: I fully realise that "compile it!" isn't the answer to
everything.  But it is the canonical answer to "how can I get an
executable binary for this open source software?"


On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 15:56, vruz wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >> I know I'm probably missing something obvious.  Help?
> > more [snips]
> > I made more progress, but those RPMs want libdb-4.2 and RedHat Enterprise
> > Server 3.0 is still using 4.1.  At this point, I think I'll just put
> > installing Ruby on hold, I don't really want to install unexpected
> > versions of db4.
> 
> optionally, you can always try to  --force --nodeps
> (although that's far from being a recommendable practice)
> if you don't use the ruby dbm modules, you shouldn't have a
> problem, no ruby libs should interfere with the default RH 
> installation.
> In any case, rpm -e will still work after forcing that install if
> you don't get the expected results.