Ruby 1.8.0 preview4

ruby-talk
41

Context is always a good idea, but wouldn’t make a difference
in this case. The patch(1) command expects files
to be diff(1)ed in the order “old new”, and the left file
gets the < and the right file gets the >.

Now, patch(1) is smart enough to detect a backwards patch and
try it the other way around, but it issues a warning
and this may distress those trying to apply your
patch. So it’s best to stick to the conventional order. :slight_smile:

-Mark

···

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 02:45:29PM +0000, Mike wrote:

Depends; “<” is new, “>” is old. Yes, I added a call to FOO.
I knew I should have used a context diff! :slight_smile:

42

Hi,

···

At Sat, 26 Jul 2003 00:00:10 +0900, Mike wrote:

Depends; “<” is new, “>” is old. Yes, I added a call to FOO.
I knew I should have used a context diff! :slight_smile:

Unified diff (and with -p option) is recommended.

–
Nobu Nakada

43

Hello,

···

In message “Re: ruby 1.8.0 preview4 (HP-UX)” on 03/07/26, Kero van Gelder kero@chello.single-dot.nl writes:

Got it, patch below (both +Z for Tk and fix for digest/sha2). I am not
sure whether this sha-fix might break sha on old HP-UX systems.

I have easy access to all extensions, except gdbm openssl readline (which
are not installed on our system). The rest at least compiles fine, but I
haven’t tested them.

Thank you for the report. If someone has problem with +Z, tell us.

						matz.
44

Thanks for your help, Nobu.

···

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:06:47 +0900, nobu.nokad wrote:

Hi,

At Wed, 30 Jul 2003 11:11:59 +0900, > Tim Hunter wrote:

This change is normal (in mkmf.rb)

1.6.8

DLDFLAGS = #{$DLDFLAGS} #{$LDFLAGS}

1.8.0

DLDFLAGS = #{CONFIG[‘DLDFLAGS’]} #$DLDFLAGS

If someone use $LDFLAGS in extconf.rb, he’ll have surprise with
1.8.0

I believe this change was made by Nobu, and was intentional. Sorry
for surprises if they happen.

  					matz.

Maybe I missed the answer to this, but what am I supposed to use instead
of $LDFLAGS in extconf.rb?

It was because that DLDFLAGS includes LDFLAGS for ruby itself was
troublesome, but I’d change:

  • DLDFLAGS in Makefile includes $LDFLAGS again, * $LDFLAGS isn’t defaulted
    to LDFLAGS for ruby * but $DLDFLAGS is defaulted to DLDFLAGS.

Does Anyone have problem?