Hi,
Does anyone know when they're be a one-click installer for Ruby 1.9? I
really don't trust the .zip file that's on the Ruby site now. There's no
real install script for it. I'm too dumb to do any kind of "manual"
install, I guess.
Thanks,
Peter
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Does anyone know when they're be a one-click installer for Ruby 1.9? I
really don't trust the .zip file that's on the Ruby site now. There's no
real install script for it. I'm too dumb to do any kind of "manual"
install, I guess.
Check out http://rubyinstaller.org/
"technology preview"
looks like the hard working OCI guys have almost got it all up there.
-r
Roger Pack wrote:
Does anyone know when they're be a one-click installer for Ruby 1.9? I
really don't trust the .zip file that's on the Ruby site now. There's no
real install script for it. I'm too dumb to do any kind of "manual"
install, I guess.Check out http://rubyinstaller.org/
"technology preview"
looks like the hard working OCI guys have almost got it all up there.
-r
I tried this Ruby, and, I have to say, it leaves something to be
desired. It doesn't do a complete install, meaning, it doesn't put Ruby
in the path and it doesn't do an association of .rb with Ruby. Also, I
just can't get Ruby 1.9 to work properly with all of my gems and stuff,
so, I've just gone back to 1.8.
Thanks.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Sorry for not fulfilling your expectations and our hard work is not up
to your "desired" standards.
To answer your _issues_:
* Adding Ruby to the PATH requires administrative privileges. The
installer doesn't ask for them to be safely installed into corporate
environments.
* It doesn't associate .rb or .rbw files because changes in the
registry related to file associations ALSO require administrative
privileges
* Ruby 1.9 is not meant to be compatible with Ruby 1.8, that is a
fact, and everybody knows about it.
Please refer to the FAQ for other questions that you may have:
http://wiki.github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/faq
If you want something different, please, be my guest and fork the
project, patches are always welcome.
On Aug 19, 10:26 am, Peter Bailey <pbai...@bna.com> wrote:
Roger Pack wrote:
>> Does anyone know when they're be a one-click installer for Ruby 1.9? I
>> really don't trust the .zip file that's on the Ruby site now. There's no
>> real install script for it. I'm too dumb to do any kind of "manual"
>> install, I guess.> Check outhttp://rubyinstaller.org/
> "technology preview"
> looks like the hard working OCI guys have almost got it all up there.
> -rI tried this Ruby, and, I have to say, it leaves something to be
desired. It doesn't do a complete install, meaning, it doesn't put Ruby
in the path and it doesn't do an association of .rb with Ruby. Also, I
just can't get Ruby 1.9 to work properly with all of my gems and stuff,
so, I've just gone back to 1.8.
--
Luis Lavena
You wrote,
"* Adding Ruby to the PATH requires administrative privileges. The
installer doesn't ask for them to be safely installed into corporate
environments.
"* It doesn't associate .rb or .rbw files because changes in the
registry related to file associations ALSO require administrative
privileges"
I'm puzzled. The download and installation of Ruby 1.8 for me did those two
things without any action by me.
So why cannot 1.9 do it? What changed?
Mason
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:26 am, Peter Bailey <pbai...@bna.com> wrote:
> Roger Pack wrote:
> >> Does anyone know when they're be a one-click installer for Ruby 1.9? I
> >> really don't trust the .zip file that's on the Ruby site now. There's
no
> >> real install script for it. I'm too dumb to do any kind of "manual"
> >> install, I guess.
>
> > Check outhttp://rubyinstaller.org/
> > "technology preview"
> > looks like the hard working OCI guys have almost got it all up there.
> > -r
>
> I tried this Ruby, and, I have to say, it leaves something to be
> desired. It doesn't do a complete install, meaning, it doesn't put Ruby
> in the path and it doesn't do an association of .rb with Ruby. Also, I
> just can't get Ruby 1.9 to work properly with all of my gems and stuff,
> so, I've just gone back to 1.8.Sorry for not fulfilling your expectations and our hard work is not up
to your "desired" standards.To answer your _issues_:
* Adding Ruby to the PATH requires administrative privileges. The
installer doesn't ask for them to be safely installed into corporate
environments.* It doesn't associate .rb or .rbw files because changes in the
registry related to file associations ALSO require administrative
privileges* Ruby 1.9 is not meant to be compatible with Ruby 1.8, that is a
fact, and everybody knows about it.Please refer to the FAQ for other questions that you may have:
http://wiki.github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/faq
If you want something different, please, be my guest and fork the
project, patches are always welcome.--
Luis Lavena
Luis Lavena wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:26�am, Peter Bailey <pbai...@bna.com> wrote:
I tried this Ruby, and, I have to say, it leaves something to be
desired. It doesn't do a complete install, meaning, it doesn't put Ruby
in the path and it doesn't do an association of .rb with Ruby. Also, I
just can't get Ruby 1.9 to work properly with all of my gems and stuff,
so, I've just gone back to 1.8.Sorry for not fulfilling your expectations and our hard work is not up
to your "desired" standards.To answer your _issues_:
* Adding Ruby to the PATH requires administrative privileges. The
installer doesn't ask for them to be safely installed into corporate
environments.* It doesn't associate .rb or .rbw files because changes in the
registry related to file associations ALSO require administrative
privileges* Ruby 1.9 is not meant to be compatible with Ruby 1.8, that is a
fact, and everybody knows about it.Please refer to the FAQ for other questions that you may have:
http://wiki.github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/faq
If you want something different, please, be my guest and fork the
project, patches are always welcome.
I am a full administrator.
Uh, not "meant to be compatible with 1.8." Gee, that doesn't make a lot
of sense to me, frankly. But, I'll just live with it.
Thanks.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
First: you downloaded either 186-26 or 186-27 rc2.
Those installers are the previous technology used, which is based in
VC6.
Second: you're running as administrator, that's why it worked.
Other users run under more controlled environments.
Third: Lot of things changed, that's why I pointed you to the FAQ to
better answer your follow up questions in case uncle Google cannot
provide those to you.
On Aug 19, 2:07 pm, Mason Kelsey <masonkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
You wrote,
"* Adding Ruby to the PATH requires administrative privileges. The
installer doesn't ask for them to be safely installed into corporate
environments."* It doesn't associate .rb or .rbw files because changes in the
registry related to file associations ALSO require administrative
privileges"I'm puzzled. The download and installation of Ruby 1.8 for me did those two
things without any action by me.
So why cannot 1.9 do it? What changed?
--
Luis Lavena
I think that what Luis was trying to say is that Ruby 1.9 is not
backwards-compatible with Ruby 1.8, and for that reason a number of
gems that work with Ruby 1.8 don't yet work with Ruby 1.9. As far as I
know, the best resource for checking this out (other than your own
experimentation) is the web site:
If a particular gem that you need isn't working under Ruby 1.9 yet,
you might try contacting the developer(s) for that gem to see what's
up.
Hope this helps,
Lyle
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Peter Bailey<pbailey@bna.com> wrote:
Uh, not "meant to be compatible with 1.8." Gee, that doesn't make a lot
of sense to me, frankly. But, I'll just live with it.