i've never understood why one would use the mingw? my biggest issue with
windows ruby is that i can't do this
ruby extconf.rb && make && make install
which renders ruby useless for my purposes - doing just about any science will
require one to compile ruby extensions and third-party libs...
so, when i compiled the gsl for win i had to do this
- install msys
- compile a ruby using msys
- compile gsl
- compile ruby-gsl using msys-ruby
- manually copy *.so, *rb, etc into c:\ruby\lib\...
not to mention quite a few small tweaks i made to ruby-gsl... anyhow. here is
my question:
why not compile ruby with msys so that windows users can install extensions
like the rest of the ruby world? it always seems strange to me that ruby's
built-in extension creation does not work on windows...
anyhow, not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, but why not msys?
cheers.
-a
···
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Curt Hibbs wrote:
There is a slight problem here though. I don't have time to go into the
detais (I've got to get out of the house in 15 minutes), but right now to
build the one-click ruby installer/distro you need VC++ 6.0. The free
version is VC++ 8 and is not compatible.
Curt
--
be kind whenever possible... it is always possible.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama
This is the stuff that I'm working on when I have time.
-austin
···
On 5/24/06, Curt Hibbs <ml.chibbs@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a slight problem here though. I don't have time to go into the
detais (I've got to get out of the house in 15 minutes), but right now to
build the one-click ruby installer/distro you need VC++ 6.0. The free
version is VC++ 8 and is not compatible.
That's the custom-built CMS running on the ruby-lang.org server and serving up content we made or imported. Yes, there are holes, but we are working to fill them in.
James Edward Gray II
P.S. I need volunteers who can generate needed content for the new site. If you are interested, email me off-list.
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:39:43PM +0900, Tim Hunter wrote:
Curt Hibbs wrote:
> There is a slight problem here though. I don't have time to go into the
> detais (I've got to get out of the house in 15 minutes), but right now
> to
> build the one-click ruby installer/distro you need VC++ 6.0. The free
> version is VC++ 8 and is not compatible.
>
> Curt
What compiler do you need to build binary extensions that are compatible
with the one-click installer?
It seems they use VC6 to compile this, so we must use it as well for extensions.
I'll let Curt explain why this particular version is used, because I
do not know.
Ryan
···
On 5/24/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
why not compile ruby with msys so that windows users can install extensions
like the rest of the ruby world? it always seems strange to me that ruby's
built-in extension creation does not work on windows...
anyhow, not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, but why not msys?
MinGW uses MSYS. You're using MinGW when you use MSYS, Ara.
-a
···
On 5/24/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> There is a slight problem here though. I don't have time to go into the
> detais (I've got to get out of the house in 15 minutes), but right now to
> build the one-click ruby installer/distro you need VC++ 6.0. The free
> version is VC++ 8 and is not compatible.
i've never understood why one would use the mingw? my biggest issue with
windows ruby is that i can't do this
What compiler do you need to build binary extensions that are compatible
with the one-click installer?
IIRC MSVC 6 or MinGW.
Thanks, Mauricio.
We tried building RMagick with MinGW and ran into problems (with Rails
apps) that smell very much like they were caused by an incompatibility
between MinGW and the compiler used for the 1.8.4 ruby-mswin binary.
Through 1.8.2, RMagick built with MinGW has always worked just fine.
So I'm wondering what to do. If I'm right and MinGW-compiled binaries
are incompatible with ruby-mswin 1.8.4, and MSVC6 is no longer available
for free, what compiler should we use to create ruby-mswin-compatible
compiled extensions?
···
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:39:43PM +0900, Tim Hunter wrote:
mswin32
Compiled by Microsoft Visual C++. This is the most 'standard' binary from the
common point-of-view in the Windows world. But we cannot use some parts of
characteristic functions which ruby on UNIX has. After 1.7.3, mswin32 has
binary level compatibility of extension libraries with mingw32. RUBY_PLATFORM
is *-mswin32.
[...]
mingw32
Compiled by gcc. Since most of the source code of ruby-mingw32 is the same as
ruby-mswin32, the behaviors of it are almost the same as that of ruby-mswin32
(probably). After 1.7.3, mingw32 has binary level compatibility of extension
libraries with mswin32. RUBY_PLATFORM is *-mingw32.
···
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 11:31:11PM +0900, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
On 5/24/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
>
>why not compile ruby with msys so that windows users can install extensions
>like the rest of the ruby world? it always seems strange to me that ruby's
>built-in extension creation does not work on windows...
>
>anyhow, not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, but why not msys?
We do not compile Ruby ourselves, but use the compiled version provided
here:
fwiw i downloaded msys and compiled ruby-1.8.4 on an xp in about 10 minutes -
no errors even.
regards.
-a
···
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Ryan Leavengood wrote:
On 5/24/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
why not compile ruby with msys so that windows users can install extensions
like the rest of the ruby world? it always seems strange to me that ruby's
built-in extension creation does not work on windows...
anyhow, not wanting to look a gift horse in the mouth, but why not msys?
We do not compile Ruby ourselves, but use the compiled version provided here:
... i've never understood why one __wouldn't__ use the mingw/msys combo? ...
obviously i'm campaigning for extconf.rb cross-platform compat - and that
means using mingw/msys.
sorry for confusion.
-a
···
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Austin Ziegler wrote:
On 5/24/06, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov <ara.t.howard@noaa.gov> wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> There is a slight problem here though. I don't have time to go into the
> detais (I've got to get out of the house in 15 minutes), but right now to
> build the one-click ruby installer/distro you need VC++ 6.0. The free
> version is VC++ 8 and is not compatible.
i've never understood why one would use the mingw? my biggest issue with
windows ruby is that i can't do this
MinGW uses MSYS. You're using MinGW when you use MSYS, Ara.
--
be kind whenever possible... it is always possible.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama
yup, you never would even make it this far. you need to do this first
cd gsl-1.8/
./configure --prefix=/usr/local && make && make install
and for that you need msys. same goes for sqlite, etc, etc. people have
compiled gsl using vc6 but they charge 400 bucks for it... that must mean
something.
regards.
-a
···
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Joel VanderWerf wrote:
ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
...
i've never understood why one would use the mingw? my biggest issue with
windows ruby is that i can't do this
ruby extconf.rb && make && make install
which renders ruby useless for my purposes - doing just about any
science will
require one to compile ruby extensions and third-party libs...
so, when i compiled the gsl for win i had to do this
- install msys
- compile a ruby using msys
- compile gsl
- compile ruby-gsl using msys-ruby
- manually copy *.so, *rb, etc into c:\ruby\lib\...
What goes wrong with gsl when you use ruby-mswin32 and nmake/vc6?
ruby extconf.rb
nmake
nmake install
This has worked for some extensions, but maybe gsl is peculiar about
being compiled with gcc?
--
be kind whenever possible... it is always possible.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama
If you're right that's pretty bad news I thought MinGW was compatible with
the MSVC6-based ruby-mswin32 builds (I only knew of compatibility problems
with the runtime used by newer VC compilers). I'm using MinGW to
cross-compile the extension used by rcov, and was considering offering a hand
to the One Click team...
If they're actually incompatible, this would almost make ruby-mingw32
preferable as a base to build the One-Click Installer upon, since:
* mingw is readily available and will not disappear the way MSVC6 did
* it allows for cross-compilation, meaning one doesn't need a win32 box nearby
to create win32 binaries
Is there anything that would make builds made with the VC-of-the-day better an
option than ruby-mingw32?
On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 10:13:14PM +0900, Tim Hunter wrote:
Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:39:43PM +0900, Tim Hunter wrote:
>> What compiler do you need to build binary extensions that are compatible
>> with the one-click installer?
>
> IIRC MSVC 6 or MinGW.
Thanks, Mauricio.
We tried building RMagick with MinGW and ran into problems (with Rails
apps) that smell very much like they were caused by an incompatibility
between MinGW and the compiler used for the 1.8.4 ruby-mswin binary.
Through 1.8.2, RMagick built with MinGW has always worked just fine.
So I'm wondering what to do. If I'm right and MinGW-compiled binaries
are incompatible with ruby-mswin 1.8.4, and MSVC6 is no longer available
for free, what compiler should we use to create ruby-mswin-compatible
compiled extensions?
Mauricio Fernandez wrote:
>> What compiler do you need to build binary extensions that are compatible
>> with the one-click installer?
> IIRC MSVC 6 or MinGW.
Thanks, Mauricio.
We tried building RMagick with MinGW and ran into problems (with Rails
apps) that smell very much like they were caused by an incompatibility
between MinGW and the compiler used for the 1.8.4 ruby-mswin binary.
Through 1.8.2, RMagick built with MinGW has always worked just fine.
That's odd, because MinGW is supposed to be compatible with VC++6. It
would be useful to see further information.
So I'm wondering what to do. If I'm right and MinGW-compiled binaries
are incompatible with ruby-mswin 1.8.4, and MSVC6 is no longer available
for free, what compiler should we use to create ruby-mswin-compatible
compiled extensions?
It's worse: MSVC6 is no longer available at all. Even I, with an MSDN
subscription, can no longer get MSVC6, as I understand it.
-austin
···
On 5/24/06, Tim Hunter <rmagick@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2006 at 09:39:43PM +0900, Tim Hunter wrote:
Overall, this is a distressing state of affairs. If anyone here knows a
reason why MinGW would be a bad idea, please speak up. In the long term it
seems like MinGW would be the way to go. But the current 1.8.4 version is
within a week or so of a final release and needs to go out as is.
The reason that I went back to VC++6 was that all of the extensions that I
pick up in binary format are VC++6.
As Ara pointed out, buildng Ruby itself is easy. I've never had problems
building Ruby. Its problems building the extensions that take the most
effort, which is why I went for binaries whenever possible.
But this came from the days when everyone thought that all these compilers
(MinGW, VC++6, VC++7, etc.) were compatible. It really looks like the only
safe approach for the long term is to build everything from source.
I think this is the right thing to do, but I need to find additional, help.
Ryan Leavengood has been tremendously helpful over the last two months. But
knowing my other commitments, we'd need at least one other knowlegable C and
Ruby developer who could be realiably counted on to help.
Curt
···
On 5/24/06, Mauricio Fernandez <mfp@acm.org> wrote:
If you're right that's pretty bad news I thought MinGW was compatible
with
the MSVC6-based ruby-mswin32 builds (I only knew of compatibility problems
with the runtime used by newer VC compilers). I'm using MinGW to
cross-compile the extension used by rcov, and was considering offering a
hand
to the One Click team...
If they're actually incompatible, this would almost make ruby-mingw32
preferable as a base to build the One-Click Installer upon, since:
* mingw is readily available and will not disappear the way MSVC6 did
* it allows for cross-compilation, meaning one doesn't need a win32 box
nearby
to create win32 binaries
Is there anything that would make builds made with the VC-of-the-day
better an
option than ruby-mingw32?
I'd guess a possible transition wouldn't be too costly given the new
One-Click infrastructure. Maybe as little as pointing to
Overall, this is a distressing state of affairs. If anyone here knows a
reason why MinGW would be a bad idea, please speak up.
i can't really comment on this - but my baby steps have shown it to be ok.
In the long term it seems like MinGW would be the way to go. But the current
1.8.4 version is within a week or so of a final release and needs to go out
as is.
The reason that I went back to VC++6 was that all of the extensions that I
pick up in binary format are VC++6.
As Ara pointed out, buildng Ruby itself is easy. I've never had problems
building Ruby. Its problems building the extensions that take the most
effort, which is why I went for binaries whenever possible.
But this came from the days when everyone thought that all these compilers
(MinGW, VC++6, VC++7, etc.) were compatible. It really looks like the only
safe approach for the long term is to build everything from source.
btw. the incompatibility i found was isascii() one compiler defines it as a
macro, and the other a function. at runtime it fails to find the symbol.
sorry i forget which is which, but it's and example of incompat.
I think this is the right thing to do, but I need to find additional, help.
Ryan Leavengood has been tremendously helpful over the last two months. But
knowing my other commitments, we'd need at least one other knowlegable C and
Ruby developer who could be realiably counted on to help.
i can lend a little assistance wrspt to compiling things - be it third party
or otherwise.
cheers.
-a
···
On Thu, 25 May 2006, Curt Hibbs wrote:
--
be kind whenever possible... it is always possible.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama
I thought MinGW was compatible with