Does anyone have Ruby 1.9 64b for Windows working?

ruby-talk
1

The "one click installer" is great, but the Ruby website provides no
such installer for Ruby 1.9 64b on Windows.

There is an old Ruby 1.9.1-p0 64b Windows binary available on
http://www.garbagecollect.jp/ruby/mswin32/en/, but it hasn't been
updated since January, and it does not come with the necessary libraries
(like zlib).

Has anyone here had success with this without having to compile
everything from scratch? How did you do it?

And if the only way to get this platform working is by compiling from
scratch, what's the best way to do that? Can it be done with Visual C++
2008 Express Edition?

It sure would be nice if Ruby 1.9 on Win64 were a "first class" ruby
platform... :frowning:

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

2

The "one click installer" is great, but the Ruby website provides no
such installer for Ruby 1.9 64b on Windows.

Unless you're going intereacting with 64bits processes, services or
64bit only libraries, there is no need you use a 64bits version of
Ruby.

There is an old Ruby 1.9.1-p0 64b Windows binary available onhttp://www.garbagecollect.jp/ruby/mswin32/en/, but it hasn't been
updated since January, and it does not come with the necessary libraries
(like zlib).

AFAIK for that to work you would require all these binaries IN 64bits
version.

Has anyone here had success with this without having to compile
everything from scratch? How did you do it?

You NEED to build everything from scratch to avoid memory allocation
issues due different version of C Runtime libraries (CRT mismatch).

And if the only way to get this platform working is by compiling from
scratch, what's the best way to do that? Can it be done with Visual C++
2008 Express Edition?

Yes, with lot of sweat and huge amount of caffeine. Last time took me
build everything used by Ruby (zlib, readline and others) 3 or 4 days
of work.

It sure would be nice if Ruby 1.9 on Win64 were a "first class" ruby
platform... :frowning:

As I commented on another thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/bab0c58e2e4b1b84#

You should ask the maintainer of these binaries (which is the
developer at garbagecollect website)

http://www.garbagecollect.jp/ruby/mswin32/en/

···

On Aug 2, 2:43 pm, Nick Brown <n...@nick-brown.com> wrote:

--
Luis Lavena

3

why don't you switch to a Unix/Linux based operating system? It saves you
much time and trouble and gives you more fun at developing programs.

All I have to do to compile the latest ruby source is to type this:

$ svn update
$ make
$ sudo make install

That's all.

-Thomas

···

2009/8/2 Nick Brown <nick@nick-brown.com>

It sure would be nice if Ruby 1.9 on Win64 were a "first class" ruby
platform... :frowning:
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

--
Thomas Preymesser
thopre@gmail.com

Pablo Picasso<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pablo_picasso.html&gt;
- "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."

4

All I have to do to compile the latest ruby source is to type this:

$ svn update
$ make
$ sudo make install

Speed is important for this project, and it will have to run on Windows
at some point. But for now, I can do some of the work on Linux.

So: I checked out http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk\. But even on
Linux, it is not as simple as running "make." Usually, when installing
from source, I find a configure script that sets everything up for make.
No such script was delivered with with the subversion checkout of ruby.
What am I missing to make the process as simple as you describe above?
Something with autoconf, maybe?

System: Ubuntu 9.04

$ svn update
At revision 24359.
$ make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.
$ ./configure
-bash: ./configure: No such file or directory

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

5

Do people not understand that in this day in age, not all software developers get to pick the operating systems on which their applications will run?

···

On Aug 2, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Thomas Preymesser <thopre@gmail.com> wrote:

2009/8/2 Nick Brown <nick@nick-brown.com>

It sure would be nice if Ruby 1.9 on Win64 were a "first class" ruby
platform... :frowning:
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

why don't you switch to a Unix/Linux based operating system? It saves you
much time and trouble and gives you more fun at developing programs.

All I have to do to compile the latest ruby source is to type this:

$ svn update
$ make
$ sudo make install

That's all.

-Thomas

--
Thomas Preymesser
thopre@gmail.com
http://thopre.googlepages.com/
http://thopre.wordpress.com/

Pablo Picasso<http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/pablo_picasso.html&gt;
- "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers."

6

Something with autoconf, maybe?

Answered my own question. The build process is:

svn co ...
autoconf
./configure
make
sudo make install

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

7

I'm not positive, but I think if you run `autoconf` in the checkout
directory it will generate the configure script.

Best,
Michael Guterl

···

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Nick Brown<nick@nick-brown.com> wrote:

All I have to do to compile the latest ruby source is to type this:

$ svn update
$ make
$ sudo make install

Speed is important for this project, and it will have to run on Windows
at some point. But for now, I can do some of the work on Linux.

So: I checked out http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/trunk\. But even on
Linux, it is not as simple as running "make." Usually, when installing
from source, I find a configure script that sets everything up for make.
No such script was delivered with with the subversion checkout of ruby.
What am I missing to make the process as simple as you describe above?
Something with autoconf, maybe?

System: Ubuntu 9.04

$ svn update
At revision 24359.
$ make
make: *** No targets specified and no makefile found. Stop.
$ ./configure
-bash: ./configure: No such file or directory