From: Dominik Maier <codepoint92@...>
Date: 2013-06-15T01:28:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Building Ruby

--047d7b4144f81f81b004df1f4f3a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks.
And yes you are right, 1.8 doen't require ruby. Thats how I build 2.0 the
first time.


2013/6/14 AR (aka AleiPhoenix) <aleiphoenix@gmail.com>

> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:06:23AM +0900, Stu wrote:
> > What do you mean my minimal? I installed Ruby 2.1 on my Funtoo laptop the
> > other day by hand. Simply set up my own environment. Also do this with
> some
> > scheme interpreters and so forth. Many people use RVM mainly to sync
> legacy
> > applications with a specific ruby patch level and gem version to avoid
> > breakage. Also RVM deals with some edge cases where hand compiling may
> be a
> > bit more involved; for example rvm works great with FreeBSD and OSX where
> > different compilers and POSIX utilities are as minimal as they come.
> >
> > ~Stu
> >
>
> I doubt whether a *executable host ruby* is required for build ruby, So I
> wondered.
>
> I've tried to compile 1.9.2-p320 and 2.0.0-p195 without any problems (both
> are simplly configure and make), but...
>
> When I ran make distclean then configure and make, it complained about
> 'executable host ruby is required. use --with-baseruby option'.
>
> I was starting realize that there must be something different before and
> after running `make distclean`, so I diffed them.
>
> diff -dru ruby-2.0.0-p195/ ruby-2.0.0-p195.distcleaned/
>
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: encdb.h
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195/ext/ripper: y.output
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: golf_prelude.c
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: insns.inc
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: insns_info.inc
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: known_errors.inc
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: node_name.inc
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: optinsn.inc
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: opt_sc.inc
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: optunifs.inc
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: .revision.time
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: transdb.h
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: vm.inc
> Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: vmtc.inc
>
>
> Looks like some files have to be generated using a *existing ruby*. and
> the source tarball already included them (for instance, known_errors.inc,
> it's from template/known_errors.inc.tmpl, written in erb). When running
> make distclean, those files are just be cleaned out. this should be the
> reason.
>
> Anyway, according to some google answers, building 1.8.x which doesn't
> require a existing ruby, then using --baseruby should do the trick.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
>
> AR (aka AleiPhoenix)
> Twitter: @AccelReality
> Wikipedia: AleiPhoenix
> weblog: weblog.areverie.org
>

--047d7b4144f81f81b004df1f4f3a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Wow. I didn&#39;t know that. Thanks.<br></div>And yes=
 you are right, 1.8 doen&#39;t require ruby. Thats how I build 2.0 the firs=
t time.<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">
2013/6/14 AR (aka AleiPhoenix) <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:alei=
phoenix@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">aleiphoenix@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class=3D"im">On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:06:23AM +0900, Stu wrote:<br>
&gt; What do you mean my minimal? I installed Ruby 2.1 on my Funtoo laptop =
the<br>
&gt; other day by hand. Simply set up my own environment. Also do this with=
 some<br>
&gt; scheme interpreters and so forth. Many people use RVM mainly to sync l=
egacy<br>
&gt; applications with a specific ruby patch level and gem version to avoid=
<br>
&gt; breakage. Also RVM deals with some edge cases where hand compiling may=
 be a<br>
&gt; bit more involved; for example rvm works great with FreeBSD and OSX wh=
ere<br>
&gt; different compilers and POSIX utilities are as minimal as they come.<b=
r>
&gt;<br>
&gt; ~Stu<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
</div>I doubt whether a *executable host ruby* is required for build ruby, =
So I wondered.<br>
<br>
I&#39;ve tried to compile 1.9.2-p320 and 2.0.0-p195 without any problems (b=
oth are simplly configure and make), but...<br>
<br>
When I ran make distclean then configure and make, it complained about &#39=
;executable host ruby is required. use --with-baseruby option&#39;.<br>
<br>
I was starting realize that there must be something different before and af=
ter running `make distclean`, so I diffed them.<br>
<br>
diff -dru ruby-2.0.0-p195/ ruby-2.0.0-p195.distcleaned/<br>
<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: encdb.h<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195/ext/ripper: y.output<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: golf_prelude.c<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: insns.inc<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: insns_info.inc<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: known_errors.inc<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: node_name.inc<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: optinsn.inc<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: opt_sc.inc<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: optunifs.inc<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: .revision.time<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: transdb.h<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: vm.inc<br>
Only in ruby-2.0.0-p195: vmtc.inc<br>
<br>
<br>
Looks like some files have to be generated using a *existing ruby*. and the=
 source tarball already included them (for instance, known_errors.inc, it&#=
39;s from template/known_errors.inc.tmpl, written in erb). When running mak=
e distclean, those files are just be cleaned out. this should be the reason=
.<br>

<br>
Anyway, according to some google answers, building 1.8.x which doesn&#39;t =
require a existing ruby, then using --baseruby should do the trick.<br>
<br>
Correct me if I&#39;m wrong.<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
AR (aka AleiPhoenix)<br>
Twitter: @AccelReality<br>
Wikipedia: AleiPhoenix<br>
weblog: <a href=3D"http://weblog.areverie.org" target=3D"_blank">weblog.are=
verie.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>

--047d7b4144f81f81b004df1f4f3a--