Ruby 1.8.2 install missing mkmf.rb on Red Hat Linux

[Bill McNeill]

My version of Ruby on Red Hat Linux is missing mkmf.rb.

$ irb
irb(main):001:0> require 'mkmf'
LoadError: no such file to load -- mkmf
from (irb):1:in `require'
from (irb):1

$ ls /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/mkmf.rb
ls: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/mkmf.rb: No such file or directory

I was able to find reference to a similar bug in Ubuntu where the fix
was to install a ruby-dev package, but I don't think that would apply
to a Linux distribution.

Is mkmf.rb a post-1.8.2 file, or is this a bug?

What's the best fix?

Thanks.

 

[Eric Hodel]

My version of Ruby on Red Hat Linux is missing mkmf.rb.

$ irb
irb(main):001:0> require 'mkmf'
LoadError: no such file to load -- mkmf
from (irb):1:in `require'
from (irb):1

$ ls /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/mkmf.rb
ls: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/mkmf.rb: No such file or directory

I was able to find reference to a similar bug in Ubuntu where the fix
was to install a ruby-dev package, but I don't think that would apply
to a Linux distribution.

Is mkmf.rb a post-1.8.2 file, or is this a bug?

This is probably due to Red Hat breaking ruby. mkmf.rb has been part
of ruby for many years.

What's the best fix?

First file a bug with Red Hat for breaking ruby up into chunks such
that you can't find everything that ships with ruby.

Then install ruby from source.

 

[matt]

My version of Ruby on Red Hat Linux is missing mkmf.rb.

$ irb
irb(main):001:0> require 'mkmf'
LoadError: no such file to load -- mkmf
from (irb):1:in `require'
from (irb):1

$ ls /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/mkmf.rb
ls: /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/mkmf.rb: No such file or directory

I was able to find reference to a similar bug in Ubuntu where the fix
was to install a ruby-dev package, but I don't think that would apply
to a Linux distribution.

Isn't Ubuntu a Linux Distro?

Is mkmf.rb a post-1.8.2 file, or is this a bug?

What's the best fix?

Thanks.

Which version of RH are you using, and which packaging method are you
using to install?

Here's a partial of how Fedora breaks up it's RPM's
Being that RH and FC are broken from the same branch, this might give
you a clue of which packages you need to install.

ruby.i386
ruby-devel.i386
ruby-docs.i386
ruby-irb.i386
ruby-libs.i386
ruby-mode.i386
ruby-rdoc.i386
ruby-ri.i386

I wouldn't worry about filing a bug on this. They made an architectural
decision to proceed this way on purpose. They are aware of it being
broken up into several units, and a bug report would just be closed out
as not a bug.

If you personally don't like it that way, then I would agree with
building from source, but a simple package install should get you going.

Matt

 

[Eric Hodel]

I wouldn't worry about filing a bug on this. They made an
architectural
decision to proceed this way on purpose. They are aware of it being
broken up into several units, and a bug report would just be closed
out
as not a bug.

No. This is a bug.

It causes confusion for people attempting to use Ruby when their
installation is broken. People attempting to use Ruby shouldn't have
to post an email to this list to figure out why they can't do X or Y
because some file is missing.

About 10% of the bugs filed against RubyGems are because some
standard part of Ruby wasn't installed by some package manager. I
shouldn't have to deal with those, and neither should this list.

Breaking up Ruby into pieces is not supported by Ruby's 'make
install', so packagers shouldn't break up Ruby into pieces that Ruby
library authors can't anticipate.

 

[Bill McNeill]

Ubuntu is a Linux distribution. I meant to say "..would apply to a Red
Hat distribution" since Ubuntu is a Debian variant.

 

[matt]

No. This is a bug.

It causes confusion for people attempting to use Ruby when their
installation is broken. People attempting to use Ruby shouldn't have
to post an email to this list to figure out why they can't do X or Y
because some file is missing.

About 10% of the bugs filed against RubyGems are because some
standard part of Ruby wasn't installed by some package manager. I
shouldn't have to deal with those, and neither should this list.

Breaking up Ruby into pieces is not supported by Ruby's 'make
install', so packagers shouldn't break up Ruby into pieces that Ruby
library authors can't anticipate.

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's a Bikeshed matter,with
lots of opinions, but with no real result. Matters like this need to be
taken off-line to another mailing list like ruby-BS ... but that's a
whole 'nother bikeshed issue on this list. 200-300 messages a day and
only 10% make sense... where's the real shame?