What''s the current status for running Rails under 1.8.3? Last I heard it was a no-go, but I can''t remember why. As a related question, has anyone tried the 1.8.4 preview? The reason this has come up is because I''ve managed to mess up an Ubuntu Hoary install: $ dpkg --list | grep ruby ii libpgsql-ruby1 0.7.1-3 PostgreSQL extension library for ruby1.8 ii libruby1.8 1.8.2-9~hoary1 Libraries necessary to run Ruby 1.8 ii libzlib-ruby 0.6.0+ruby1.8. Extension library to use zlib from Ruby ii ruby1.8 1.8.2-9~hoary1 Interpreter of object-oriented scripting lan $ $ ruby1.8 -v ruby 1.8.3 (2005-06-23) [i486-linux] $ Which has me *mightily* confused. I was messing around with the multiverse and extras repositories last night (since removed from sources.list), so something''s probably crept in there, but I get those same results after apt-get --purge remove ruby1.8 ruby; apt-get install rails. Anyone else seen this? It''s not critical, because I''m quite happy to compile up 1.8.2 if I can''t sort this out the ''proper'' way, but it''s an interesting little blip nonetheless... -- Alex
Alex, Upgrading to Breezy will provide you with a great Ruby on Rails friendly development environment. But remember to install all the ruby packages with apt and then use gem to grab rails. Have fun, Nicholas Alex Young wrote:> What''s the current status for running Rails under 1.8.3? Last I heard > it was a no-go, but I can''t remember why. As a related question, has > anyone tried the 1.8.4 preview? > > The reason this has come up is because I''ve managed to mess up an > Ubuntu Hoary install: > > $ dpkg --list | grep ruby > ii libpgsql-ruby1 0.7.1-3 PostgreSQL extension library for ruby1.8 > ii libruby1.8 1.8.2-9~hoary1 Libraries necessary to run Ruby 1.8 > ii libzlib-ruby 0.6.0+ruby1.8. Extension library to use zlib from Ruby > ii ruby1.8 1.8.2-9~hoary1 Interpreter of object-oriented > scripting lan > $ > $ ruby1.8 -v > ruby 1.8.3 (2005-06-23) [i486-linux] > $ > > Which has me *mightily* confused. I was messing around with the > multiverse and extras repositories last night (since removed from > sources.list), so something''s probably crept in there, but I get those > same results after apt-get --purge remove ruby1.8 ruby; apt-get > install rails. > > Anyone else seen this? It''s not critical, because I''m quite happy to > compile up 1.8.2 if I can''t sort this out the ''proper'' way, but it''s > an interesting little blip nonetheless... >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 10, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Alex Young wrote:> What''s the current status for running Rails under 1.8.3? Last I > heard it was a no-go, but I can''t remember why. As a related > question, has anyone tried the 1.8.4 preview?On Rails 0.13.1 and Ruby 1.8.3 there was a Logger incompatibility that resulted in empty logs. The Rails 1.0 release candidates test fine with 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and 1.8.4p1. jeremy -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDcyzgAQHALep9HFYRAuvgAKCJmWG9Br3EfNRASopaTSldAmhycgCgxjLh VPGksRCP8uFQgS7J0eYhVFk=s9M3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Jeremy Kemper wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Nov 10, 2005, at 3:03 AM, Alex Young wrote: > >> What''s the current status for running Rails under 1.8.3? Last I >> heard it was a no-go, but I can''t remember why. As a related >> question, has anyone tried the 1.8.4 preview? > > > On Rails 0.13.1 and Ruby 1.8.3 there was a Logger incompatibility that > resulted in empty logs. > > The Rails 1.0 release candidates test fine with 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and 1.8.4p1.Fab - one less thing to worry about :-) -- Alex
ntollervey wrote:> Alex, > > Upgrading to Breezy will provide you with a great Ruby on Rails friendly > development environment. But remember to install all the ruby packages > with apt and then use gem to grab rails. > > Have fun,Apparently, you''re mistaken: upgrading to Breezy provided me with a doorstop, an afternoon of fun, and a fresh install of Debian Sarge. Close, though... -- Alex
On 11/11/05, Alex Young <alex-qV/boFbD8Meu8LGVeLuP/g@public.gmane.org> wrote:> What''s the current status for running Rails under 1.8.3? Last I heard > it was a no-go, but I can''t remember why. As a related question, has > anyone tried the 1.8.4 preview?Some folks are having problems with ActionWebService under 1.8.3+, I''m investigating this. It appears to be a problem in our usage of the versions of SOAP4R bundled with them. Leon
On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 19:26 +0000, Alex Young wrote:> ntollervey wrote: > > Alex, > > > > Upgrading to Breezy will provide you with a great Ruby on Rails friendly > > development environment. But remember to install all the ruby packages > > with apt and then use gem to grab rails. > > > > Have fun, > Apparently, you''re mistaken: upgrading to Breezy provided me with a > doorstop, an afternoon of fun, and a fresh install of Debian Sarge. > Close, though...For whatever it''s worth, I''m running a Breezy installation with ruby 1.8.3 and a gem installation of rails (0.14.3) and it works without a problem. I''m not quite sure how the (obviously) same installation base can yield to such differing results, though... t _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Alex, I''m sorry to hear upgrading to Breezy sent your system FUBAR... :-( I''m afraid, like Tobias, that my experience with such an upgrade was without hitch. I too am not sure why the same installation base could yield such differing results. Better luck with Sarge! Nicholas Tobias Witek wrote:>On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 19:26 +0000, Alex Young wrote: > > >>ntollervey wrote: >> >> >>>Alex, >>> >>>Upgrading to Breezy will provide you with a great Ruby on Rails friendly >>>development environment. But remember to install all the ruby packages >>>with apt and then use gem to grab rails. >>> >>>Have fun, >>> >>> >>Apparently, you''re mistaken: upgrading to Breezy provided me with a >>doorstop, an afternoon of fun, and a fresh install of Debian Sarge. >>Close, though... >> >> > > >For whatever it''s worth, I''m running a Breezy installation with ruby >1.8.3 and a gem installation of rails (0.14.3) and it works without a >problem. >I''m not quite sure how the (obviously) same installation base can yield >to such differing results, though... > >t > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >
Nicholas H.Tollervey wrote:> Alex, > > I''m sorry to hear upgrading to Breezy sent your system FUBAR... :-(Oh, I''m sure none of it was anybody''s fault but my own :-)> > I''m afraid, like Tobias, that my experience with such an upgrade was > without hitch. I too am not sure why the same installation base could > yield such differing results.Well, I''m pretty sure there was something Fundamentally Wrong with the dpkg cache, given my original problem, so relying on a broken system to fix itself was pretty optimistic.> > Better luck with Sarge! >After a couple of hours tweaking around, trying to find out what was wrong and steadily making matters worse - eventually ending up with a new Ubuntu Breezy installer consistently hanging at the partitioning stage (great for the nerves, given that there was a Windows partition that *had* to be preserved) - I decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and retreated to something I knew a little better... -- Alex
Jeremy Kemper wrote:> On Rails 0.13.1 and Ruby 1.8.3 there was a Logger incompatibility that > resulted in empty logs. > > The Rails 1.0 release candidates test fine with 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and 1.8.4p1.Fab - one less thing to worry about :-)
Jeremy Kemper wrote:> On Rails 0.13.1 and Ruby 1.8.3 there was a Logger incompatibility that > resulted in empty logs. > > The Rails 1.0 release candidates test fine with 1.8.2, 1.8.3, and 1.8.4p1.Fab - one less thing to worry about :-)