Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > 10.2.8 saga continued

Reply
Thread Tools

10.2.8 saga continued

 
 
Julian Leviston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2005
Hey guys,

I just realised when I was "make"-ing the ruby 1.8.2, it kept saying
"nothing to be done for All"... is that normal? Can anyone tell me if
this is the normal results for a make?

gcc -g -O2 -pipe -fno-common main.o dmyext.o libruby-static.a -
ldl -lobjc -o miniruby
compiling bigdecimal
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling curses
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling dbm
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling digest
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling digest/md5
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling digest/rmd160
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling digest/sha1
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling digest/sha2
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling dl
compiling enumerator
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling etc
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling fcntl
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling gdbm
compiling iconv
compiling io/wait
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling nkf
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling openssl
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling pty
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling racc/cparse
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling readline
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling sdbm
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling socket
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling stringio
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling strscan
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling syck
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling syslog
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling tcltklib
compiling tk
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
compiling Win32API
compiling win32ole
compiling zlib
make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
making ruby
gcc -g -O2 -pipe -fno-common -L. main.o -lruby-static -ldl -
lobjc -o ruby



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ralf Müller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2005
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:24:45 +0900
Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hey guys,
>
> I just realised when I was "make"-ing the ruby 1.8.2, it kept saying
> "nothing to be done for All"... is that normal? Can anyone tell me if
> this is the normal results for a make?
>
> gcc -g -O2 -pipe -fno-common main.o dmyext.o libruby-static.a -
> ldl -lobjc -o miniruby
> compiling bigdecimal
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling curses
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling dbm
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling digest
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling digest/md5
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling digest/rmd160
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling digest/sha1
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling digest/sha2
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling dl
> compiling enumerator
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling etc
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling fcntl
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling gdbm
> compiling iconv
> compiling io/wait
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling nkf
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling openssl
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling pty
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling racc/cparse
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling readline
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling sdbm
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling socket
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling stringio
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling strscan
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling syck
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling syslog
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> compiling tcltklib
> compiling tk
> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.


For compiling these ext-libs look at your ext/Setup file in the source
directory. You should remove the '#' sign for compiling.

best regards
ralf


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Julian Leviston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2005
Should they all be on?


On 12/08/2005, at 10:33 PM, Ralf M=FCller wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:24:45 +0900
> Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I just realised when I was "make"-ing the ruby 1.8.2, it kept saying
>> "nothing to be done for All"... is that normal? Can anyone tell me if
>> this is the normal results for a make?
>>
>> gcc -g -O2 -pipe -fno-common main.o dmyext.o libruby-static.a -
>> ldl -lobjc -o miniruby
>> compiling bigdecimal
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling curses
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling dbm
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling digest
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling digest/md5
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling digest/rmd160
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling digest/sha1
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling digest/sha2
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling dl
>> compiling enumerator
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling etc
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling fcntl
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling gdbm
>> compiling iconv
>> compiling io/wait
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling nkf
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling openssl
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling pty
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling racc/cparse
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling readline
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling sdbm
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling socket
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling stringio
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling strscan
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling syck
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling syslog
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>> compiling tcltklib
>> compiling tk
>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>

>
> For compiling these ext-libs look at your ext/Setup file in the source
> directory. You should remove the '#' sign for compiling.
>
> best regards
> ralf
>
>




 
Reply With Quote
 
Ralf Müller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2005
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:55:03 +0900
Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Should they all be on?
>


this depends on what you want to do with ruby?

if unsure take them all. This will increase your interpreter from 1.3 MB to 2.5
MB. I'm sure many gems rely on some of these external libs. So it will you
keep painfree (hopefully) when installing additional ruby software.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Jason Foreman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2005
On 8/12/05, Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Should they all be on?
>=20
>=20


the ./configure script should turn on the ones appropriate for your
machine, depending on what headers it can find.

Since you're on 10.2.x, let me ask - Have you installed the BSD
subsystem? I don't remember if installing the Dev Tools will
automatically install that or not, and I remember it was not installed
by default.

It seems like during ./configure, none of the headers necessary for
building the Ruby extensions were found.

Untar a clean ruby tree again, run ./configure, and check the output.

Jason


> On 12/08/2005, at 10:33 PM, Ralf M=FCller wrote:
>=20
> > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:24:45 +0900
> > Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Hey guys,
> >>
> >> I just realised when I was "make"-ing the ruby 1.8.2, it kept saying
> >> "nothing to be done for All"... is that normal? Can anyone tell me if
> >> this is the normal results for a make?
> >>
> >> gcc -g -O2 -pipe -fno-common main.o dmyext.o libruby-static.a -
> >> ldl -lobjc -o miniruby
> >> compiling bigdecimal
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling curses
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling dbm
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling digest
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling digest/md5
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling digest/rmd160
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling digest/sha1
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling digest/sha2
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling dl
> >> compiling enumerator
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling etc
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling fcntl
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling gdbm
> >> compiling iconv
> >> compiling io/wait
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling nkf
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling openssl
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling pty
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling racc/cparse
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling readline
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling sdbm
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling socket
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling stringio
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling strscan
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling syck
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling syslog
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >> compiling tcltklib
> >> compiling tk
> >> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
> >>

> >
> > For compiling these ext-libs look at your ext/Setup file in the source
> > directory. You should remove the '#' sign for compiling.
> >
> > best regards
> > ralf
> >
> >

>=20
>=20
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Julian Leviston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2005
I want to run rubygems.

I want to run Rails.


On 12/08/2005, at 11:11 PM, Ralf M=FCller wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 21:55:03 +0900
> Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>> Should they all be on?
>>
>>

>
> this depends on what you want to do with ruby?
>
> if unsure take them all. This will increase your interpreter from =20
> 1.3 MB to 2.5
> MB. I'm sure many gems rely on some of these external libs. So it =20=


> will you
> keep painfree (hopefully) when installing additional ruby software.
>
>




 
Reply With Quote
 
Julian Leviston
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2005
That is about the most help ANYONE has been in ages. Thanks! This is =20
about the 10th time I've untarred a clean one, though...

Julian.

On 12/08/2005, at 11:11 PM, Jason Foreman wrote:

> On 8/12/05, Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Should they all be on?
>>
>>
>>

>
> the ./configure script should turn on the ones appropriate for your
> machine, depending on what headers it can find.
>
> Since you're on 10.2.x, let me ask - Have you installed the BSD
> subsystem? I don't remember if installing the Dev Tools will
> automatically install that or not, and I remember it was not installed
> by default.
>
> It seems like during ./configure, none of the headers necessary for
> building the Ruby extensions were found.
>
> Untar a clean ruby tree again, run ./configure, and check the output.
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>> On 12/08/2005, at 10:33 PM, Ralf M=FCller wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 20:24:45 +0900
>>> Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hey guys,
>>>>
>>>> I just realised when I was "make"-ing the ruby 1.8.2, it kept =20
>>>> saying
>>>> "nothing to be done for All"... is that normal? Can anyone tell =20
>>>> me if
>>>> this is the normal results for a make?
>>>>
>>>> gcc -g -O2 -pipe -fno-common main.o dmyext.o libruby-static.a -
>>>> ldl -lobjc -o miniruby
>>>> compiling bigdecimal
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling curses
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling dbm
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling digest
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling digest/md5
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling digest/rmd160
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling digest/sha1
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling digest/sha2
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling dl
>>>> compiling enumerator
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling etc
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling fcntl
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling gdbm
>>>> compiling iconv
>>>> compiling io/wait
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling nkf
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling openssl
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling pty
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling racc/cparse
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling readline
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling sdbm
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling socket
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling stringio
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling strscan
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling syck
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling syslog
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>> compiling tcltklib
>>>> compiling tk
>>>> make[1]: Nothing to be done for `all'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> For compiling these ext-libs look at your ext/Setup file in the =20
>>> source
>>> directory. You should remove the '#' sign for compiling.
>>>
>>> best regards
>>> ralf
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>
>>
>>

>
>




 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven Jenkins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-12-2005
Julian Leviston wrote:
> That is about the most help ANYONE has been in ages. Thanks! This is
> about the 10th time I've untarred a clean one, though...


I don't know anything about MacOS, but I've seen cases where configure
was badly fooled by a problem running gcc or some lower-level script.
Configure sometimes concludes that a header or library is not present
because an attempt to locate it fails. This conclusion can be wrong if
the reason for the failure is something other than absence of the header
or library. Look at config.log and see if there's some repeated failure.

Steve


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ralf Müller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-15-2005
On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:21:13 +0900
Julian Leviston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I want to run rubygems.
>
> I want to run Rails.
>


Maybe you've already done this, but:

rubygems:
try "ruby setup.rb" inside the rubygems directory. try "which ruby" order "type
ruby" (bash specific). The output should be the ruby, you've hopefully installed
with the ext-libs.

rails:
"gem install rails"

you should perform all these actions under the same user, you've installed ruby
with.

hth

best regards
ralf


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The saga of the vacuum cleaner (continued) philo Computer Support 15 09-09-2009 01:53 PM
OT: The Saga Continues... [and wait, there's MORE] PC LOAD LETTER MCSE 22 01-24-2006 08:32 PM
Continuing saga! Harry Computer Support 7 08-12-2004 07:12 AM
The DMZ and the PIX515e saga Mick Cisco 1 07-03-2004 06:30 PM
AP350 radio saga (interface up/down) Al Blake Cisco 0 04-15-2004 09:08 PM



Advertisments