When will ruby181-11.exe be fixed?


(John W Kennedy) #1

Are rdoc and ri going to be made usable anytime soon?

···


John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old–
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor’s sake."
– Charles Williams. “Judgement at Chelmsford”


(Gavin Kistner) #2

What about rdoc do you not find usable currently?

I’ve found a few bugs while working with it this week, but overall it
seems quite usable to me.

···

On Feb 20, 2004, at 4:54 PM, John W. Kennedy wrote:

Are rdoc and ri going to be made usable anytime soon?


(-, /\ / / //


(John W Kennedy) #3

Gavin Kistner wrote:

Are rdoc and ri going to be made usable anytime soon?

What about rdoc do you not find usable currently?

I’ve found a few bugs while working with it this week, but overall it
seems quite usable to me.

The ruby181-11.exe version (I’m assuming that there is only one, dated
January 28) ri and rdoc are completely broken. I deleted, redownloaded,
reinstalled, etc., with no better results, and reported it here and via
email to pragmaticprogramer.com back on the 30th. If I install
ruby180-10.exe, they work; if I install ruby181-11, they don’t. I no
longer remember all of what goes wrong, but at a guess, there’s an
installation step that isn’t being finished, or even executed.

To begin with, ri and rdoc are named “ri” and “rdoc”, not “ri.rb” and
"rdoc.rb", which they need to be on Windows, so they don’t even execute.
But even if I rename them, they’re still broken; if I remember
rightly, ri seems to be missing its database, and rdoc has data-path
problems. ri.bat thinks Ruby’s installed on drive T:.

Perfectly normal XP Pro system, all current patches, either version of
Ruby installed with all default options on drive C:.

···

On Feb 20, 2004, at 4:54 PM, John W. Kennedy wrote:


John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old–
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor’s sake."
– Charles Williams. “Judgement at Chelmsford”


(Curt Hibbs) #4

John W. Kennedy wrote:

Gavin Kistner wrote:

Are rdoc and ri going to be made usable anytime soon?

What about rdoc do you not find usable currently?

I’ve found a few bugs while working with it this week, but overall it
seems quite usable to me.

The ruby181-11.exe version (I’m assuming that there is only one, dated
January 28) ri and rdoc are completely broken. I deleted, redownloaded,
reinstalled, etc., with no better results, and reported it here and via
email to pragmaticprogramer.com back on the 30th. If I install
ruby180-10.exe, they work; if I install ruby181-11, they don’t. I no
longer remember all of what goes wrong, but at a guess, there’s an
installation step that isn’t being finished, or even executed.

To begin with, ri and rdoc are named “ri” and “rdoc”, not “ri.rb” and
"rdoc.rb", which they need to be on Windows, so they don’t even execute.
But even if I rename them, they’re still broken; if I remember
rightly, ri seems to be missing its database, and rdoc has data-path
problems. ri.bat thinks Ruby’s installed on drive T:.

Perfectly normal XP Pro system, all current patches, either version of
Ruby installed with all default options on drive C:.

Thank you for reporting these problems, they are in our bug list.

Release 181-11 was rushed out for those who wanted to get there hands on a
1.8.1 version as soon as possible. It does have a few problems, and we are
working on them as we have time from our otherwise busy lives.

Unfortunately, I can’t give you a date, but I can assure you that it has not
been forgotten. We’ll get there as quickly as we can.

Curt

···

On Feb 20, 2004, at 4:54 PM, John W. Kennedy wrote:


(Laurent Julliard) #5

yes, ri has no data. And both need to have a (ri|rdoc).bat without
reference to T: :slight_smile:
my .bat is just

path\to\ruby \path\to\ri_or_rdoc

and works fine :slight_smile:

plus, there is a redist of rexml in lib\site_ruby wich is outdated
(2.5.7, 2.7.3 is in lib\1.8) but I’m not sure if I may have that from
a previous installation

···

il Sat, 21 Feb 2004 01:20:20 GMT, “John W. Kennedy” jwkenne@attglobal.net ha scritto::

To begin with, ri and rdoc are named “ri” and “rdoc”, not “ri.rb” and
"rdoc.rb", which they need to be on Windows, so they don’t even execute.
But even if I rename them, they’re still broken; if I remember
rightly, ri seems to be missing its database, and rdoc has data-path
problems. ri.bat thinks Ruby’s installed on drive T:.


(Stephan Kämper) #6

John W. Kennedy wrote:

Gavin Kistner wrote:

Are rdoc and ri going to be made usable anytime soon?

What about rdoc do you not find usable currently?

I’ve found a few bugs while working with it this week, but overall it
seems quite usable to me.

The ruby181-11.exe version (I’m assuming that there is only one, dated
January 28) ri and rdoc are completely broken. I deleted, redownloaded,
reinstalled, etc., with no better results, and reported it here and via
email to pragmaticprogramer.com back on the 30th. If I install
ruby180-10.exe, they work; if I install ruby181-11, they don’t. I no
longer remember all of what goes wrong, but at a guess, there’s an
installation step that isn’t being finished, or even executed.

I reported some issues here in c.l.r. I remember that I had the problem
that RDoc ‘tried’ to parse non Ruby files, too - log files, texts
whatever I happened to have in the directory I called RDoc from.
As I love the GraphViz diagrams being included I usually run RDoc with
’-d’, which in the 1.8.1-11 doesn’t terminate (well at least not within
my patience range).

I just made the step back to 1.8.0 with wich works for me…

Happy Rubying!

Stephan

···

On Feb 20, 2004, at 4:54 PM, John W. Kennedy wrote:


(Laurent Julliard) #7

also interesting:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/freeride-users/2004-February/000012.html

BTW, I forgot to say that probably, Andy won’t ever have time to
release enough often. I believe having the build system available soon
would be much more useful
Oh, did I say ‘please include latest SciTE !’ ?

···

il Sat, 21 Feb 2004 09:10:46 GMT, gabriele renzi surrender_it@remove.yahoo.it ha scritto::


(Curt Hibbs) #8

Stephan Kamper wrote:

The ruby181-11.exe version (I’m assuming that there is only one, dated
January 28) ri and rdoc are completely broken. I deleted,
redownloaded,
reinstalled, etc., with no better results, and reported it here and via
email to pragmaticprogramer.com back on the 30th. If I install
ruby180-10.exe, they work; if I install ruby181-11, they don’t. I no
longer remember all of what goes wrong, but at a guess, there’s an
installation step that isn’t being finished, or even executed.

I reported some issues here in c.l.r. I remember that I had the problem
that RDoc ‘tried’ to parse non Ruby files, too - log files, texts
whatever I happened to have in the directory I called RDoc from.
As I love the GraphViz diagrams being included I usually run RDoc with
’-d’, which in the 1.8.1-11 doesn’t terminate (well at least not within
my patience range).

I just made the step back to 1.8.0 with wich works for me…

Thanks, I added you comments.

Curt


(Bob X) #9

gabriele renzi wrote:

···

il Sat, 21 Feb 2004 09:10:46 GMT, gabriele renzi > surrender_it@remove.yahoo.it ha scritto::

also interesting:
http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/freeride-users/2004-February/000012.html

BTW, I forgot to say that probably, Andy won’t ever have time to
release enough often. I believe having the build system available soon
would be much more useful
Oh, did I say ‘please include latest SciTE !’ ?
Actually you should just customize your ruby.properties and save it out.
Then you can keep the latest SciTE. :slight_smile:

I do it since I use SciTE for all my scripting needs.


(Laurent Julliard) #10

eh, already done :slight_smile:
Now, I’m wondering if we could use RDoc to build ruby.api file :slight_smile:

···

il Sat, 21 Feb 2004 13:30:11 -0500, Robert bobx@linuxmail.org ha scritto::

Actually you should just customize your ruby.properties and save it out.
Then you can keep the latest SciTE. :slight_smile: