I am happily running OS 10.2.1 on my Mac, using the default OS X
installation of Ruby. I have not installed any packages yet, but will
be doing so soon. The fink package manager seems to be a pretty good
installer, so that’s what I’ll probably use. Now, fink installs Ruby
libaries under /sw/bin and /sw/lib, as opposed to Mac OS X, which
installs it under /usr/bin and /usr/lib.
Has anyone tried to use OS X’s native Ruby, yet have fink install
libraries in the /sw directory? Or is it preferable to simply let
fink install Ruby over again in /sw, along with additional libraries
(thus ignoring the native OS X Ruby installation)? Or is better to
fiddle with fink, and have fink install Ruby libraries in /usr/lib as
oppsoed to /sw?
I think it’s better to let fink do its thing in /sw. This is partly
because I just like the ability to turn fink off by commenting out one
line in my .tcshrc file and partly because there were some issues with
the rbconfig.rb file, if memory serves, that made problems with
building 3rd party libraries. Letting fink rebuild ruby gives you a
fresh rbconfig.rb. Finally, fink will import enough X11 stuff to build
ruby Tcl/Tk. I like to experiment with the alpha but progressing Quartz
Tcl/Tk. With a fink build in /sw I can play around with X11 Tcl/Tk and
then switch to Quartz Tcl/Tk.
···
On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 07:24 PM, Damon wrote:
I am happily running OS 10.2.1 on my Mac, using the default OS X
installation of Ruby. I have not installed any packages yet, but will
be doing so soon. The fink package manager seems to be a pretty good
installer, so that’s what I’ll probably use. Now, fink installs Ruby
libaries under /sw/bin and /sw/lib, as opposed to Mac OS X, which
installs it under /usr/bin and /usr/lib.
Has anyone tried to use OS X’s native Ruby, yet have fink install
libraries in the /sw directory? Or is it preferable to simply let
fink install Ruby over again in /sw, along with additional libraries
(thus ignoring the native OS X Ruby installation)? Or is better to
fiddle with fink, and have fink install Ruby libraries in /usr/lib as
oppsoed to /sw?
I think it’s better to let fink do its thing in /sw. This is partly
because I just like the ability to turn fink off by commenting out one
line in my .tcshrc file and partly because there were some issues with
the rbconfig.rb file, if memory serves, that made problems with
building 3rd party libraries. Letting fink rebuild ruby gives you a
fresh rbconfig.rb. Finally, fink will import enough X11 stuff to build
ruby Tcl/Tk. I like to experiment with the alpha but progressing Quartz
Tcl/Tk. With a fink build in /sw I can play around with X11 Tcl/Tk and
then switch to Quartz Tcl/Tk.
Thanks, I think most peoople take this approach as well: Use fink to
re-install ruby in /sw along with any additional libraries, thus
ignoring the native OS X installation of ruby. I think this would
work fine, except for a few programs such as RubyCocoa which is
distributed via a .dmg file rather than fink, and insists upon
installing into /usr/lib.
As much as I like the fact that Apple distributes Ruby, I think it
does complicate things, if we want to use a package manager such as
fink that has a different notion of where packages whold be installed.
Good point. I’ll send a note to the fink maintainers asking them to
include RubyCocoa and RubyAEOSA.
···
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:25 AM, Damon wrote:
Thanks, I think most peoople take this approach as well: Use fink to
re-install ruby in /sw along with any additional libraries, thus
ignoring the native OS X installation of ruby. I think this would
work fine, except for a few programs such as RubyCocoa which is
distributed via a .dmg file rather than fink, and insists upon
installing into /usr/lib.
I intend to release next version 0.4 of RubyCocoa for less than
about 2 weeks. RubyCocoa 0.4 is changed from 0.3 a lot. So wait
till then please.
In RubyCocoa 0.4, RubyCocoa.framework will include the libruby
itself and most of existing RubyCocoa codes.
thanks,
···
At 07 Nov 2002 04:18:15 +0900, canyonrat@mac.c wrote:
On Wednesday, November 6, 2002, at 11:25 AM, Damon wrote:
Thanks, I think most peoople take this approach as well: Use fink to
re-install ruby in /sw along with any additional libraries, thus
ignoring the native OS X installation of ruby. I think this would
work fine, except for a few programs such as RubyCocoa which is
distributed via a .dmg file rather than fink, and insists upon
installing into /usr/lib.
Good point. I’ll send a note to the fink maintainers asking them to
include RubyCocoa and RubyAEOSA.