Installing Ruby 1.8.7-p374 and Rails 3.2.13 error in rack-cache
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}
How can I installing Rails 3.2.13 in a Ruby 1.8.7?
My hosting server using these versions and I would like to set up a environment in Vagrant using a CentOS 7 box.
I install a Ruby 1.8.7 using a RVM.
When I trying to install the Rails 3.2.13, I received an error message: (rack-cache need ruby >= 2.0.0)
Any idea how can I install Rails 3.2.13 using Ruby 1.8.7 ?
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [x86_64-linux]
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$ gem install rails -v 3.2.13
Fetching: i18n-0.6.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed i18n-0.6.1
Fetching: multi_json-1.13.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed multi_json-1.13.1
Fetching: activesupport-3.2.13.gem (100%)
Successfully installed activesupport-3.2.13
Fetching: builder-3.0.4.gem (100%)
Successfully installed builder-3.0.4
Fetching: activemodel-3.2.13.gem (100%)
Successfully installed activemodel-3.2.13
Fetching: rack-1.4.7.gem (100%)
Successfully installed rack-1.4.7
Fetching: rack-cache-1.8.0.gem (100%)
ERROR: Error installing rails:
rack-cache requires Ruby version >= 2.0.0.
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$
ruby-on-rails ruby
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:22
KevinO
3,48142031
asked Nov 16 '18 at 15:14
rafaelrufiorafaelrufio
81
add a comment |
How can I installing Rails 3.2.13 in a Ruby 1.8.7?
My hosting server using these versions and I would like to set up a environment in Vagrant using a CentOS 7 box.
I install a Ruby 1.8.7 using a RVM.
When I trying to install the Rails 3.2.13, I received an error message: (rack-cache need ruby >= 2.0.0)
Any idea how can I install Rails 3.2.13 using Ruby 1.8.7 ?
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [x86_64-linux]
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$ gem install rails -v 3.2.13
Fetching: i18n-0.6.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed i18n-0.6.1
Fetching: multi_json-1.13.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed multi_json-1.13.1
Fetching: activesupport-3.2.13.gem (100%)
Successfully installed activesupport-3.2.13
Fetching: builder-3.0.4.gem (100%)
Successfully installed builder-3.0.4
Fetching: activemodel-3.2.13.gem (100%)
Successfully installed activemodel-3.2.13
Fetching: rack-1.4.7.gem (100%)
Successfully installed rack-1.4.7
Fetching: rack-cache-1.8.0.gem (100%)
ERROR: Error installing rails:
rack-cache requires Ruby version >= 2.0.0.
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$
ruby-on-rails ruby
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:22
KevinO
3,48142031
asked Nov 16 '18 at 15:14
rafaelrufiorafaelrufio
81
2
Why do you feel the need to install an ancient version of rails, with an even more ancient version of ruby? And the short answer is that no, you can't; these versions are incompatible, as the error message states.
– Tom Lord
Nov 16 '18 at 15:19
add a comment |
How can I installing Rails 3.2.13 in a Ruby 1.8.7?
My hosting server using these versions and I would like to set up a environment in Vagrant using a CentOS 7 box.
I install a Ruby 1.8.7 using a RVM.
When I trying to install the Rails 3.2.13, I received an error message: (rack-cache need ruby >= 2.0.0)
Any idea how can I install Rails 3.2.13 using Ruby 1.8.7 ?
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [x86_64-linux]
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$ gem install rails -v 3.2.13
Fetching: i18n-0.6.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed i18n-0.6.1
Fetching: multi_json-1.13.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed multi_json-1.13.1
Fetching: activesupport-3.2.13.gem (100%)
Successfully installed activesupport-3.2.13
Fetching: builder-3.0.4.gem (100%)
Successfully installed builder-3.0.4
Fetching: activemodel-3.2.13.gem (100%)
Successfully installed activemodel-3.2.13
Fetching: rack-1.4.7.gem (100%)
Successfully installed rack-1.4.7
Fetching: rack-cache-1.8.0.gem (100%)
ERROR: Error installing rails:
rack-cache requires Ruby version >= 2.0.0.
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$
ruby-on-rails ruby
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:22
KevinO
3,48142031
asked Nov 16 '18 at 15:14
rafaelrufiorafaelrufio
81
How can I installing Rails 3.2.13 in a Ruby 1.8.7?
My hosting server using these versions and I would like to set up a environment in Vagrant using a CentOS 7 box.
I install a Ruby 1.8.7 using a RVM.
When I trying to install the Rails 3.2.13, I received an error message: (rack-cache need ruby >= 2.0.0)
Any idea how can I install Rails 3.2.13 using Ruby 1.8.7 ?
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [x86_64-linux]
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$ gem install rails -v 3.2.13
Fetching: i18n-0.6.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed i18n-0.6.1
Fetching: multi_json-1.13.1.gem (100%)
Successfully installed multi_json-1.13.1
Fetching: activesupport-3.2.13.gem (100%)
Successfully installed activesupport-3.2.13
Fetching: builder-3.0.4.gem (100%)
Successfully installed builder-3.0.4
Fetching: activemodel-3.2.13.gem (100%)
Successfully installed activemodel-3.2.13
Fetching: rack-1.4.7.gem (100%)
Successfully installed rack-1.4.7
Fetching: rack-cache-1.8.0.gem (100%)
ERROR: Error installing rails:
rack-cache requires Ruby version >= 2.0.0.
[vagrant@ror02 ~]$
ruby-on-rails ruby
ruby-on-rails ruby
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:22
KevinO
3,48142031
asked Nov 16 '18 at 15:14
rafaelrufiorafaelrufio
81
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:22
KevinO
3,48142031
asked Nov 16 '18 at 15:14
rafaelrufiorafaelrufio
81
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:22
KevinO
3,48142031
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:22
KevinO
3,48142031
edited Nov 16 '18 at 15:22
KevinO
3,48142031
3,48142031
asked Nov 16 '18 at 15:14
rafaelrufiorafaelrufio
81
asked Nov 16 '18 at 15:14
rafaelrufiorafaelrufio
81
asked Nov 16 '18 at 15:14
rafaelrufiorafaelrufio
81
81
2
Why do you feel the need to install an ancient version of rails, with an even more ancient version of ruby? And the short answer is that no, you can't; these versions are incompatible, as the error message states.
– Tom Lord
Nov 16 '18 at 15:19
add a comment |
2
Why do you feel the need to install an ancient version of rails, with an even more ancient version of ruby? And the short answer is that no, you can't; these versions are incompatible, as the error message states.
– Tom Lord
Nov 16 '18 at 15:19
2
2
Why do you feel the need to install an ancient version of rails, with an even more ancient version of ruby? And the short answer is that no, you can't; these versions are incompatible, as the error message states.
– Tom Lord
Nov 16 '18 at 15:19
Why do you feel the need to install an ancient version of rails, with an even more ancient version of ruby? And the short answer is that no, you can't; these versions are incompatible, as the error message states.
– Tom Lord
Nov 16 '18 at 15:19
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
If you have rvm you may just install the latest ruby and rails. There is no need to use the system wide installed version.
https://rvm.io/gemsets/basics
I just use ruby 2.5.1 and rails 5.2.0.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:58
Martin T.Martin T.
1037
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53340567%2finstalling-ruby-1-8-7-p374-and-rails-3-2-13-error-in-rack-cache%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
If you have rvm you may just install the latest ruby and rails. There is no need to use the system wide installed version.
https://rvm.io/gemsets/basics
I just use ruby 2.5.1 and rails 5.2.0.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:58
Martin T.Martin T.
1037
add a comment |
If you have rvm you may just install the latest ruby and rails. There is no need to use the system wide installed version.
https://rvm.io/gemsets/basics
I just use ruby 2.5.1 and rails 5.2.0.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:58
Martin T.Martin T.
1037
add a comment |
If you have rvm you may just install the latest ruby and rails. There is no need to use the system wide installed version.
https://rvm.io/gemsets/basics
I just use ruby 2.5.1 and rails 5.2.0.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:58
Martin T.Martin T.
1037
If you have rvm you may just install the latest ruby and rails. There is no need to use the system wide installed version.
https://rvm.io/gemsets/basics
I just use ruby 2.5.1 and rails 5.2.0.
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:58
Martin T.Martin T.
1037
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:58
Martin T.Martin T.
1037
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:58
Martin T.Martin T.
1037
answered Nov 16 '18 at 19:58
Martin T.Martin T.
1037
1037
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53340567%2finstalling-ruby-1-8-7-p374-and-rails-3-2-13-error-in-rack-cache%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Why do you feel the need to install an ancient version of rails, with an even more ancient version of ruby? And the short answer is that no, you can't; these versions are incompatible, as the error message states.
– Tom Lord
Nov 16 '18 at 15:19