Hey there list-
I was able to play around on a friends OSX Tiger install today and was pleasantly surprised to find ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc-darwin8.0] Installed by default.
Just an FYI.
-Ezra
In article <C198E44A-DFB4-4037-BE11-8F7A17E5FBD2@yakima-herald.com>,
···
Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezra@yakima-herald.com> wrote:
Hey there list-
I was able to play around on a friends OSX Tiger install today
and was pleasantly surprised to find ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc-
darwin8.0] Installed by default.
That's great news... though by the time Tiger comes out (next month?)
1.8.3 could be out. 
Phil
Ezra Zygmuntowicz ha scritto:
Hey there list-
I was able to play around on a friends OSX Tiger install today and was pleasantly surprised to find ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc- darwin8.0] Installed by default.
Just an FYI.
-Ezra
I'm not very much into OSX, but IIRC there are packages coming as "frameworks".
It seem to me this was the case for python in the last release, is it the same for ruby now ?
Ruby 1.8.2 in Tiger confirmed on this handy page http://www.apple.com/opensource/
···
On 11 Apr 2005, at 00:37, Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:
Hey there list-
I was able to play around on a friends OSX Tiger install today and was pleasantly surprised to find ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc-darwin8.0] Installed by default.
Just an FYI.
-Ezra
This is GREAT NEWS.
I asked Jordan Hubbard at Apple in early January in they could get 1.8.2
included, and he registered an 'exception' to try...I am so very glad they
got it in!
I hope its possible to build extensions with it 'out of the box' 
-rich
···
On 4/10/05 9:29 PM, "Phil Tomson" <ptkwt@aracnet.com> wrote:
In article <C198E44A-DFB4-4037-BE11-8F7A17E5FBD2@yakima-herald.com>,
Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezra@yakima-herald.com> wrote:Hey there list-
I was able to play around on a friends OSX Tiger install today
and was pleasantly surprised to find ruby 1.8.2 (2004-12-25) [powerpc-
darwin8.0] Installed by default.That's great news... though by the time Tiger comes out (next month?)
1.8.3 could be out.Phil
gabriele renzi wrote:
I'm not very much into OSX, but IIRC there are packages coming as "frameworks".
It seem to me this was the case for python in the last release, is it the same for ruby now ?
Frameworks (.framework) are Mac OS X Shared Libraries (not .dynlib (same as .so on linux)) that can include Cocoa specific things like .nib files. (RubyCocoa comes as framework). Maybe python includes a cocoa binding that comes as a framework or the python lib is a framework. (it's possible to compile c libs as frameworks too (SDL for example))
Mac OS X Installer packages are .pkg or .mpkg
···
--
Jannis Harder
In article <BE7F4FFC.2378B%rich@infoether.com>,
This is GREAT NEWS.
I asked Jordan Hubbard at Apple in early January in they could get 1.8.2
included, and he registered an 'exception' to try...I am so very glad they
got it in!
Apparently someone rescued the exception.
I hope its possible to build extensions with it 'out of the box'
So they might not have included the necessary header files?
Just wondering: might a future version of rubygems (when it's included in
the standard ruby distro) be able to upgrade ruby itself?
Phil
···
Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> wrote:
Yeah well, irb is still compiled without readline support. 
···
Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> wrote:
This is GREAT NEWS.
--
Luc Heinrich - lucsky@mac.com
Or using a 3rd party updater is a right choice. Fink coming to my mind.
···
On Mon, 2005-04-11 at 13:54 +0900, Phil Tomson wrote:
Just wondering: might a future version of rubygems (when it's included in
the standard ruby distro) be able to upgrade ruby itself?
--
David Moreno Garza <damog@damog.net> | http://www.damog.net/
Meet yourself! Commit suicide and type "hack"
GPG: C671257D - 6EF6 C284 C95D 78F6 0B78 FFD3 981C 5FD7 C671 257D
* Luc Heinrich <lucsky@mac.com> [0409 07:09]:
···
Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> wrote:
> This is GREAT NEWS.
Yeah well, irb is still compiled without readline support.
Readline is problematic license-wise, I think?
If you build and install readline (and the ruby readline lib), irb
will 'just work' - you won't need to recompile ruby or irb.
(yes, ok, you'll need gcc and ruby source to build the readline lib.
But they could always be packaged as a gem or something - does
rubygems support binary gems yet?)
--
'Bender, Ship, stop arguing or I'll come back there and change
your opinions manually.'
-- Leela
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
BSD editline may be a viable alternative for them, if readline is a license problem. I wonder why they don't use it...
-Brian
···
On Apr 11, 2005, at 4:51 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
* Luc Heinrich <lucsky@mac.com> [0409 07:09]:
Richard Kilmer <rich@infoether.com> wrote:
This is GREAT NEWS.
Yeah well, irb is still compiled without readline support.
Readline is problematic license-wise, I think?
If you build and install readline (and the ruby readline lib), irb
will 'just work' - you won't need to recompile ruby or irb.(yes, ok, you'll need gcc and ruby source to build the readline lib.
But they could always be packaged as a gem or something - does
rubygems support binary gems yet?)--
'Bender, Ship, stop arguing or I'll come back there and change
your opinions manually.'
-- Leela
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns