3

Possible Duplicate:
Why are gems installed in a 1.9.1 directory when my Ruby version is different than 1.9.1?

I've installed Ruby 1.9.3-p0 on an RHEL 6 system (Linux 2.6.32-122.el6.x86_64) by downloading the source and compiling. I didn't use any options. Just ./configure, make, and make install.

When I run gem environment I get...

$ gem environment
RubyGems Environment:
  - RUBYGEMS VERSION: 1.8.17
  - RUBY VERSION: 1.9.3 (2011-10-30 patchlevel 0) [x86_64-linux]
  - INSTALLATION DIRECTORY: /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1
  - RUBY EXECUTABLE: /usr/local/bin/ruby
  - EXECUTABLE DIRECTORY: /usr/local/bin
  - RUBYGEMS PLATFORMS:
    - ruby
    - x86_64-linux
  - GEM PATHS:
     - /usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1
     - /root/.gem/ruby/1.9.1
  - GEM CONFIGURATION:
     - :update_sources => true
     - :verbose => true
     - :benchmark => false
     - :backtrace => false
     - :bulk_threshold => 1000
  - REMOTE SOURCES:
     - http://rubygems.org/

Notice the references to "/usr/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.9.1". Shouldn't that be "1.9.3"?

I ran gem update --system, and it output "1.9.1" both before and after I did so.

Community
  • 1
  • 1
Ethan
  • 57,819
  • 63
  • 187
  • 237
  • 1
    Summary: Standard library hasn't moved, so default Ruby path still includes 1.9.1. – coreyward Feb 23 '12 at 02:47
  • See also http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8564210/why-are-we-installing-ruby-1-9-2-1-9-3-gems-into-a-1-9-1-folder/8565831#8565831 – knut Jan 05 '13 at 21:36

1 Answers1

2

I don't think so. I have Ruby 1.9.2, and the directory is still 1.9.1. I think this is for backward compatibly with gems from previous minor versions.

Linuxios
  • 34,849
  • 13
  • 91
  • 116