Ruby install script; packages+installs as a .deb or .rpm from source

Question

Is this bad practice? Also, how can it be improved?

#!/usr/bin/env bash
RUBY_VERSION=2.1.0
printf "Installing Ruby $RUBY_VERSION\\n"
if [ -d ruby_build ]; then
 rm -Rf ruby_build
fi
if [[ `command -v ruby` && `ruby --version | colrm 11` == "ruby $RUBY_VERSION" ]] ; then
 echo "You already have this version of Ruby: $RUBY_VERSION"
 exit 113
fi
sudo apt-get build-dep -y ruby1.9.1
mkdir ruby_build && cd ruby_build
curl -O "http://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/2.1/ruby-$RUBY_VERSION.tar.gz"
tar xf "ruby-$RUBY_VERSION.tar.gz"
cd "ruby-$RUBY_VERSION"
./configure
make
sudo checkinstall -y --pkgversion "$RUBY_VERSION" --provides "ruby-interpreter" --replaces="ruby-1.9.2"
cd ../.. && rm -Rf ruby_build

• Josh Rumbut: It really seems like this is a job for rvm unless there is some other logic you can't show us. It can be set to build from source.

Answer 1

First,I would like to point out that not all .deb-based distributions are as fond of sudo as Ubuntu is. For example, Debian doesn't use sudo out of the box.

It appears that you're trying to build a newer version of Ruby than is available in the stock package repository. In that case, why not make a proper .deb package with its .dsc and publish it in a private APT repository? Then, everything integrates properly into the distribution the way package management is supposed to work, including the build process and subsequent updates. Everyone will have a better experience when you work with the system instead of against it.

• A T: Hmm, actually setting up my own PPA might not be too bad a solution. Can even make most of it public (such as NodeJS, Ruby, CouchDB &etc); just keeping the internal components private.
• A T: Agreed, setting up a private PPA is the best approach, however that option was dismissed as something to be done later down the track. Well it is over 1.5 years later, so I suppose this is down the track!