Why they don't release a ruby 1.8.7 or ruby 1.9 installer for windows?
regards
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=33233
http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/06/28/rubyinstaller-preview1-released/
···
On Jul 30, 4:23 pm, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
Why they don't release a ruby 1.8.7 or ruby 1.9 installer for windows?
regards
--
Luis Lavena
Forgot to include my favorite:
http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/05/05/rubyinstaller-state-of-one-click/
···
On Jul 30, 5:13 pm, Luis Lavena <luislav...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 30, 4:23 pm, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why they don't release a ruby 1.8.7 or ruby 1.9 installer for windows?
> regards
http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=33233
http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/06/28/rubyinstaller-preview1-released/
--
Luis Lavena
Thanks!
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
What differs those binaries ones from a installed (from one-click) ruby
?
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
The ones installed from former One-Click are built using Microsoft
Visual C 6.0, that defines the Ruby platform as i386-mswin32.
The new ones are built with MinGW (GCC) and the platform is i386-
mingw32
Both remains binary compatible because they link to the exact same C
Runtime library (MSVCRT.DLL) but sometimes the gems compiled or built
against VC6 will not work on MinGW, or viceversa.
http://blog.mmediasys.com/2008/08/10/rubygems-with-power-comes-responsibility/
The new shape of installer and the reason for be that way is better
explained and covered here:
http://wiki.github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/faq
I made this announcement a few weeks ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/c38255aacd68d6dc
But you can search for all my answers at google groups (just search
for Ruby Installer)
Hope all this information helps.
···
On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
What differs those binaries ones from a installed (from one-click) ruby
?
--
Luis Lavena
Thanks for your reply Luis!
I sincerely appreciate your job developing ruby installer.
Actually, my question is about what differs this
http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/18566/ruby186-25.exe from this
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/binaries/mswin32/ruby-1.8.6-i386-mswin32.zip
except for the fact there is a instalation wizard 
regards
Luis Lavena wrote:
···
On Jul 30, 5:48�pm, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
What differs those binaries ones from a installed (from one-click) ruby
?The ones installed from former One-Click are built using Microsoft
Visual C 6.0, that defines the Ruby platform as i386-mswin32.The new ones are built with MinGW (GCC) and the platform is i386-
mingw32Both remains binary compatible because they link to the exact same C
Runtime library (MSVCRT.DLL) but sometimes the gems compiled or built
against VC6 will not work on MinGW, or viceversa.http://blog.mmediasys.com/2008/08/10/rubygems-with-power-comes-responsibility/
The new shape of installer and the reason for be that way is better
explained and covered here:http://wiki.github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/faq
I made this announcement a few weeks ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/c38255aacd68d6dc
But you can search for all my answers at google groups (just search
for Ruby Installer)Hope all this information helps.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Well, you need then to better format your questions, because I read
your messages twice and couldn't find that specific question.
The file available at ruby-lang FTP server is not a complete and
functional installation of Ruby.
I requested Ruby-Core and website maintainers to state that at the
downloads page:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/
"Please note that some of the above binaries will require manual
download and installation of additional components detailed on this
page. Please ensure you’ve followed/performed these steps prior
reporting a bug.
The One-Click Installer does not require these additional tasks."
And my request and the reasoning behind it:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/24571
Playing more dumb on your question, you're pointing to a Ruby
installer version 1.8.5, which differs A LOT from 1.8.6 ir 1.9.1,
which I'm not going to explain over here.
···
On Jul 30, 9:34 pm, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for your reply Luis!
I sincerely appreciate your job developing ruby installer.Actually, my question is about what differs thishttp://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/18566/ruby186-25.exefrom thisftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/binaries/mswin32/ruby-1.8.6-i386-msw...
except for the fact there is a instalation wizard
--
Luis Lavena
Luis Lavena wrote:
Playing more dumb on your question, you're pointing to a Ruby
installer version 1.8.5, which differs A LOT from 1.8.6 ir 1.9.1,
which I'm not going to explain over here.
Thanks for your reply.
Look for "Ruby Em Windows" at Baixar o Ruby
Ruby 1.8.6 One-Click Installer (md5: 3b768d48ed4e25991762e8c76e54f28d)
Versão Estável (recomendada)
Ruby 1.8.6 Binary (md5: d4ca9d387614108156289fb6c4208dd0) Versão Estável
(recomendada)
Booth are links that I posted here. Where is version 1.8.5 that you
mentioned?
And my request and the reasoning behind it:
http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/24571
Those libs that are not in binaries zip file are very important. Why
ruby developers didn't include them in binaries zip file?
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Luis Lavena wrote:
> Playing more dumb on your question, you're pointing to a Ruby
> installer version 1.8.5, which differs A LOT from 1.8.6 ir 1.9.1,
> which I'm not going to explain over here.Thanks for your reply.
Look for "Ruby Em Windows" athttp://www.ruby-lang.org/pt/downloads/
Ruby 1.8.6 One-Click Installer (md5: 3b768d48ed4e25991762e8c76e54f28d)
Versão Estável (recomendada)
Ruby 1.8.6 Binary (md5: d4ca9d387614108156289fb6c4208dd0) Versão Estável
(recomendada)Booth are links that I posted here. Where is version 1.8.5 that you
mentioned?
"> Actually, my question is about what differs
thishttp://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/18566/ruby186-25.exe"
Sorry, 186-25 confused me. Anyhow..
> And my request and the reasoning behind it:
>http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/24571
Those libs that are not in binaries zip file are very important. Why
ruby developers didn't include them in binaries zip file?
Dunno, ask them, tried since 2006 without any success.
···
On Jul 31, 9:03 am, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Luis Lavena