[Rubygems-developers] Installing Rubygems in User's Local Directory to fix Gem on Memory-Limited Systems
drbrain at segment7.net
Thu Jun 7 20:55:52 EDT 2007
Please don't top post.
On Jun 7, 2007, at 12:30, Randy Parker wrote:
> Which bug is not fixed yet? I see that [rubygems #8470] is still
> open on http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?
> But my understanding of #8470 is that the the local
> dir is not _automatically_ used for installation.
There may be two bugs, but they both seem to be in the same category.
> Do you mean that the most recent note posted to the bug
> report, which proposes a workaround by re-running
> the install sequence
> ruby setup.rb config --prefix=$GEM_HOME
> ruby setup.rb setup
> ruby setup.rb install
> Is also known NOT to work? (it ain't just me?)
I've not tried it, but I'm going to take your word for it. I'm a bit
busy right now to investigate in detail.
Can you poke around in setup.rb to see if its ignoring --prefix?
> If that is true, then is it accurate to say that there is no way
> to run "gem update --system" for a "non-standard installation
> (that is, one that doesn't require root access, as described by
> http://rubygems.org/read/chapter/15#page101 )
> If there is no workaround, then because "gem install" / "gem
> update" require rubygems-update-0.9.4.2 to run on memory-
> constrained hosting containers,
> and the only way to install it is with root permission, then it
> must be that
> nobody can use "gem" unless they have a dedicated system (or a hosting
> container that is as big as a dedicated system).
> Surely I'm missing something?
You can install your own ruby in your homedir, then it'll work.
Right now it appears to be using Ruby's prefix over the one you
want. If you have your own ruby, you'll be able to write to where
setup.rb is trying to put things.
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars
More information about the Rubygems-developers