I recently got bitten by some code which uses an idiom like:
if RUBY_PLATFORM =~ /win/i
# windows stuff here
end
which is fine until you try it on a machine (like my shiny new
PowerBook) whose platform string is:
powerpc-darwin-8.1.0
I looked around and couldn't find a systematic solution to getting
useful information from RUBY_PLATFORM so I quickly hacked something
together which you can find described at:
at the moment it's a single require to get definitions of:
Platform::OS (e.g. :unix or :win32)
Platform::IMPL (e.g. :macosx or :mingw)
Platform::ARCH (e.g. :powerpc or :x86)
or :unknown if it can't figure your platform out.
I'd be very grateful if everyone on the list would please take a
moment download the 'platform.rb' code and run it as 'ruby
platform.rb' and check that it prints out sensible values for ::OS,
::IMPL, and ::ARCH.
If not please either reply here or in a comment to the post including
the output of
ruby -e 'puts RUBY_PLATFORM'
and what you would expect ::OS, ::IMPL, and ::ARCH to be for your platform.
I'd like to get as comprehensive coverage as possible and then release
this as a library that people can depend upon for detecting platform
differences.
Would the answer to this question influence the choice of IMPL for an HP
(or DEC or Compaq) implementation of Ruby for VMS? Or would it stay the
same? I suppose we might have IMPL=vms now and IMPL=freevms later if
there are significant differences between the two.
Ben
···
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 19:16 +0900, Matt Mower wrote:
If not please either reply here or in a comment to the post including
the output of
ruby -e 'puts RUBY_PLATFORM'
and what you would expect ::OS, ::IMPL, and ::ARCH to be for your platform.
I recently got bitten by some code which uses an idiom like:
if RUBY_PLATFORM =~ /win/i
# windows stuff here
end
which is fine until you try it on a machine (like my shiny new
PowerBook) whose platform string is:
powerpc-darwin-8.1.0
I looked around and couldn't find a systematic solution to getting
useful information from RUBY_PLATFORM so I quickly hacked something
together which you can find described at:
at the moment it's a single require to get definitions of:
Platform::OS (e.g. :unix or :win32)
Platform::IMPL (e.g. :macosx or :mingw)
Platform::ARCH (e.g. :powerpc or :x86)
or :unknown if it can't figure your platform out.
I'd be very grateful if everyone on the list would please take a
moment download the 'platform.rb' code and run it as 'ruby
platform.rb' and check that it prints out sensible values for ::OS,
IMPL, and ::ARCH.
If not please either reply here or in a comment to the post including
the output of
ruby -e 'puts RUBY_PLATFORM'
and what you would expect ::OS, ::IMPL, and ::ARCH to be for your
platform.
I'd like to get as comprehensive coverage as possible and then release
this as a library that people can depend upon for detecting platform
differences.
14:40:33 [cg-tsp-hq]: cmd /c ver
Microsoft Windows 2000 [Version 5.00.2195]
14:40:58 [cg-tsp-hq]: uname -a
CYGWIN_NT-5.0 bond 1.5.17(0.129/4/2) 2005-05-25 19:38 i686 unknown unknown
Cygwin
14:41:00 [cg-tsp-hq]: ruby /c/temp/ruby/platform.rb
Platform OS=unix, IMPL=cygwin, ARCH=x86
14:41:04 [cg-tsp-hq]:
Looks pretty much ok IMHO. Does anybody think cygwin should not be
reported as "unix"?
Would the answer to this question influence the choice of IMPL for an HP
(or DEC or Compaq) implementation of Ruby for VMS? Or would it stay the
same? I suppose we might have IMPL=vms now and IMPL=freevms later if
That seems sensible. Of course it would require that RUBY_PLATFORM
expose it as FreeVMS.
M
···
On 6/29/05, BG - Ben Armstrong <BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 19:16 +0900, Matt Mower wrote:
It occurs to me that there is also this project to consider, and it is
related to your question about whether cygwin should be reported as
"unix" or not:
Depending on how "UNIX-like" GNV becomes, it is conceivable that a
GNV-based Ruby on VMS might be analogous to the cygwin/win32 situation.
Would this ruby then be OS=vms, IMPL=gnv? OS=unix, IMPL=gnv? OS=gnv,
IMP=gnv?
My gut feeling is that enough of the ugly details* of VMS would show
through any implementation that we should never say OS=unix. And it
seems strange to me to say OS=gnv (just as it seems strange to me to say
OS=cygwin). Anyway, whatever you decide about cygwin, I think the
choice for vms/gnv should be consistent with that decision.**
Ben
* Although beauty is in the eye of the beholder
** Then again, you could justifiably argue that all this talk of
hypothetical alternate implementations of VMS Ruby when we barely have
one implementation today is so much in the realm of fantasy as to be
entirely irrelevant.
···
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 21:55 +0900, Matt Mower wrote:
That seems sensible. Of course it would require that RUBY_PLATFORM
expose it as FreeVMS.
I guess the issue here is about what decisions one might be trying to
make based upon seeing:
OS == :unix
It might be best for hybrid's like cygwin, gnv, and so on if we
reported something unambigous, e.g.
OS => :hybrid
IMPL => :cygwin, :gnv, etc...
At least this way you can plan what you're going to do if you're not
on a straightforward platform.
e.g.
if OS == :unix
# do unix
else if OS == :hybrid && IMPL == :cygwin
# handle Cygwin case
or
if OS == :unix || ( OS == :hybrid && IMPL == :cygwin )
# we don't care
I'm tempted to wonder about "hybrid-unix" but think that might be
getting too complicated. In all likelyhood there aren't that many
combinations that would need to be given special treatment.
M
···
On 6/29/05, BG - Ben Armstrong <BArmstrong@dymaxion.ca> wrote:
On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 21:55 +0900, Matt Mower wrote:
> That seems sensible. Of course it would require that RUBY_PLATFORM
> expose it as FreeVMS.
It occurs to me that there is also this project to consider, and it is
related to your question about whether cygwin should be reported as
"unix" or not:
