No. I have, unfortunately, been busy with wedding planning and have
not yet had time to pull together a promised email. Soon, I hope. The
invitations are sent.
-austin
···
On 9/11/06, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
That would be ideal, but seems unlikely. Is there any progress on
this front?
i'll confess that i have no idea if your are right or not and that chances are
very good that you are - still, it seems like it may be a worthwhile
experiment.
cheers.
-a
···
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On 9/11/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
or campaign for an msys based ruby dist which would make this all go away
...and introduce three dozen other problems that aren't worth using MSYS for.
--
in order to be effective truth must penetrate like an arrow - and that is
likely to hurt. -- wei wu wei
I only got it working after I recompiled ruby from sources using a
combination of cygwin and mingw, and even then I still had to patch
rubyinline to work with mingw.
Are you able to compile extensions using mkmf? If you can do that you
can try comparing the compile commands and adding the missing flags to
rubyinline.
···
On 9/18/06, Mike Berrow <mberrow1@pacbell.net> wrote:
Mike Berrow wrote:
So ... no takers on this?
It would be hard to believe that I am the only one
that has (recently) tried to use RubyInline on Windows.
You need to use the same compiler for building both Ruby and any
extensions, inline or not.
The simple solution, now that you have a compiler, is to build and
install a new ruby.
Sigh ... I get the picture.
I guess that means I have to abandon all the fine work done by
Curt Hibbs on the one-click installer and start from scratch.
I am not an ace with C makefiles etc. these days so I sense that
could be a tough road.
Would it be easier to track down the exact C compiler used by
Curt and install that instead?.
The command line is fine for a Ruby developer. For an "average" end
user of some Ruby program, a one-click installer is essential on the
Windows platform.
Along those same lines, you'll also want to automagically install gem,
win32 stuff, etc. -- all the good things on the windows platform that
*NIX does not need (except for gem -- that's always good stuff).
TwP
···
On 9/11/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Ryan Davis wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:22 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
>>
>> or campaign for an msys based ruby dist which would make this all go away
>>
>
> That would be ideal, but seems unlikely. Is there any progress on this front?
maybe we should just make one? if it were me, i'd probably just compile
everything, zip it, and let people unpack it. a bat script to setup the
environment, associactions, etc. might be nice, but i'm a fan of keeping
stuff out of system space and letting people just point their env at it...
what do you think? basically i'm thinking
msys-ruby-1.0.0.tgz
(unpack)
cd c:\msys-ruby-1.0.0\
setup.bat # sets up env vars, file assoc, etc.
setup.bat, for that matter, need only configure %PATH and then spawn setup.rb.
No matter what path is taken, someone will still be unhappy. My goal
is to make things as simple as possible for 80% of the Windows users.
Curt
···
On 9/11/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 9/11/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
>> or campaign for an msys based ruby dist which would make this all go away
>>
> ...and introduce three dozen other problems that aren't worth using MSYS for.
i'll confess that i have no idea if your are right or not and that chances are
very good that you are - still, it seems like it may be a worthwhile
experiment.
On 9/11/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Ryan Davis wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:22 AM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
>>
>> or campaign for an msys based ruby dist which would make this all go away
>>
>
> That would be ideal, but seems unlikely. Is there any progress on this front?
maybe we should just make one? if it were me, i'd probably just compile
everything, zip it, and let people unpack it. a bat script to setup the
environment, associactions, etc. might be nice, but i'm a fan of keeping
stuff out of system space and letting people just point their env at it...
what do you think? basically i'm thinking
msys-ruby-1.0.0.tgz
(unpack)
cd c:\msys-ruby-1.0.0\
setup.bat # sets up env vars, file assoc, etc.
setup.bat, for that matter, need only configure %PATH and then spawn setup.rb.
thoughts?
The command line is fine for a Ruby developer. For an "average" end
user of some Ruby program, a one-click installer is essential on the
Windows platform.
Along those same lines, you'll also want to automagically install gem,
win32 stuff, etc. -- all the good things on the windows platform that
*NIX does not need (except for gem -- that's always good stuff).
TwP
The "average" user might not care about InLine Ruby as much as you do...
I have a lot more to learn before I need InLine and by then it might be worth DIY to get there.
The "average" user might not care about InLine Ruby as much as you do...
I have a lot more to learn before I need InLine and by then it might be worth DIY to get there.
If an "average" developer uses a library that depends on RubyInline, then it becomes very important that it be easy to deploy ruby with RubyInline working out of the box.
···
--
vjoel : Joel VanderWerf : path berkeley edu : 510 665 3407
RubyInline has the ability to create a gem that includes the built library removing the need to install a compiler.
···
On Sep 15, 2006, at 11:47 AM, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
Tom Allison wrote:
The "average" user might not care about InLine Ruby as much as you do...
I have a lot more to learn before I need InLine and by then it might be worth DIY to get there.
If an "average" developer uses a library that depends on RubyInline, then it becomes very important that it be easy to deploy ruby with RubyInline working out of the box.
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant
