[ANN] One-Click Ruby Installer 182-15 for Windows

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Curt Hibbs, Apr 26, 2005.

  1. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    I had hope to simultaneously release installers
    for an updated version of Ruby 1.8.2 stable *and*
    the new 1.8.3 preview1, but there appears to be some
    delay for Matz in releasing 1.8.3 preview1. So I am
    releasing the updated stable version now.

    This release of the One-Click Ruby Installer for
    Windows is built from Ruby 1.8.2 final. It mostly
    upgrades included extensions and applications to
    their most recent versions.

    There is one notable addition: fxri 0.3.2.
    Be sure to try it (if you use FreeRIDE, fxri
    is also embedded into FreeRIDE) because it is
    wonderfully addictive! fxri combines a nice
    interactive search interface to the Ruby docu-
    mentation along with an interactive ruby
    session (irb) -- all wrapped up in a nice GUI
    shell.

    Changes Since 1.8.2-14 Final:
    - Added fxri 0.3.2
    - Updated FXRuby 1.2.6
    - Updated FreeRIDE to 0.9.4
    - Updated RubyGems to 0.8.10
    - Created start menu shortcuts for RubyGems gem_server
    and viewing the RDoc for installed gems.
    - Included new build of readline 4.3.2
    (I hope this fixes readline problems)
    - Included user-submitted irb patch
    - Included ruby/misc/ruby-electric.el from Ruby 1.9
    - Included TestUnit patch needed by Rails

    Enjoy!
    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Apr 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 4/26/05, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    >


    I noticed SQLite was included as a RFE, any word on whether thats
    considered valuable? The byte overhead wouldn't be much and its handy
    to have some sort of persistence above and beyond marshalled arrays of
    hashs :)

    --
    Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.
    Lyndon Samson, Apr 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Curt Hibbs

    Matt Mower Guest

    Hi Curt,

    On 4/26/05, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    > This release of the One-Click Ruby Installer for
    > Windows is built from Ruby 1.8.2 final. It mostly
    > upgrades included extensions and applications to
    > their most recent versions.
    >


    Just thought i'd let you know that installing this package doesn't
    seem to have added C:\RUBY\BIN to the path or setup the PATHEXT entry
    for executing .rb and .rbw files. If I remember correctly the
    1.8.2-14 package did do this.

    I installed by first uninstalling the 1.8.2-14 package (which deleted
    my C:\RUBY directory) and then running the new installer. I'm using
    Windows XP-SP1.

    Regards,

    Matt

    --
    Matt Mower :: http://matt.blogs.it/
    Matt Mower, Apr 26, 2005
    #3
  4. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    [quote Matt Mower::eek:n 4/26/2005 4:16 PM]
    > Hi Curt,
    >
    > On 4/26/05, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    >> This release of the One-Click Ruby Installer for
    >> Windows is built from Ruby 1.8.2 final. It mostly
    >> upgrades included extensions and applications to
    >> their most recent versions.
    >>

    >
    > Just thought i'd let you know that installing this package doesn't
    > seem to have added C:\RUBY\BIN to the path or setup the PATHEXT entry
    > for executing .rb and .rbw files. If I remember correctly the
    > 1.8.2-14 package did do this.
    >
    > I installed by first uninstalling the 1.8.2-14 package (which deleted
    > my C:\RUBY directory) and then running the new installer. I'm using
    > Windows XP-SP1.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Matt
    >

    This is weird. Same env, same steps still i see the entry in Path definition on the System variables.

    - --:alex |.::the_mindstorm::.|
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iD8DBQFCbmO+OCPjdDT2FEURAnLEAKDH/MjTusGtVcc/diatBtNMMNeX4QCgirHg
    rZ7X/OgHDuwuSL371v7rYh8=
    =VboH
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Alexandru Popescu, Apr 26, 2005
    #4
  5. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    Alexandru Popescu wrote:
    >>
    >>Just thought i'd let you know that installing this package doesn't
    >>seem to have added C:\RUBY\BIN to the path or setup the PATHEXT entry
    >>for executing .rb and .rbw files. If I remember correctly the
    >>1.8.2-14 package did do this.
    >>
    >>I installed by first uninstalling the 1.8.2-14 package (which deleted
    >>my C:\RUBY directory) and then running the new installer. I'm using
    >>Windows XP-SP1.
    >>
    >>Regards,
    >>
    >>Matt
    >>

    >
    > This is weird. Same env, same steps still i see the entry in Path definition on the System variables.


    This one is gong to drive me crazy! This happened to a handful of people
    with 1.8.2-14, but the vast majority had no problem.

    Does it help if you reboot after installation?

    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Apr 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    Lyndon Samson wrote:
    > On 4/26/05, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > I noticed SQLite was included as a RFE, any word on whether thats
    > considered valuable? The byte overhead wouldn't be much and its handy
    > to have some sort of persistence above and beyond marshalled arrays of
    > hashs :)
    >


    My longterm goal is to replace actually including more extensions with a
    nice integrated GUI interface for browsing and installing RubyGems
    packaged extensions. SQLite would probably fit into that category.

    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Apr 26, 2005
    #6
  7. Curt Hibbs

    Matt Mower Guest

    Hi Curt,

    On 4/26/05, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    > > This is weird. Same env, same steps still i see the entry in Path definition on the System variables.

    >
    > This one is gong to drive me crazy! This happened to a handful of people
    > with 1.8.2-14, but the vast majority had no problem.
    >


    Yes, more puzzling still since I'm one of the ones for whom it worked
    with 1.8.2-14.

    > Does it help if you reboot after installation?
    >


    No, sadly I had tried that before posting.

    Regards,

    Matt

    --
    Matt Mower :: http://matt.blogs.it/
    Matt Mower, Apr 26, 2005
    #7
  8. Curt Hibbs wrote:
    > This release of the One-Click Ruby Installer for
    > Windows is built from Ruby 1.8.2 final. It mostly
    > upgrades included extensions and applications to
    > their most recent versions.


    Which compiler is used to produce this version?
    VC 6, 7, 7.1?

    Thanks

    --
    J Lambert
    Jon A. Lambert, Apr 26, 2005
    #8
  9. On 4/26/05, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    > - Included new build of readline 4.3.2
    > (I hope this fixes readline problems)


    Yay! Thanks a lot :D

    It no longer crashes when I start irb and press tab twice.

    It apparently didn't fix the locale problem though. It is still
    impossible[*] to type []}{ etc and typing äöå exits irb. No error
    message or anything, just a prompt.

    [*] Outside emacs-shell that is. Yes, I know that it possible to fix
    with a .irbrc, however, it isn't something that a user should ever
    have to care about.
    Linus Sellberg, Apr 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Re: One-Click Ruby Installer 182-15 for Windows

    Ok, I downloaded the installer .exe file. I double-clicked the file to
    launch it. I clicked Next to continue, then I clicked "I Agree" at the
    Licence Agreement screen. Then I clicked Next at the Choose Components
    screen, and Install at the Choose Install Location screen. Finally,
    after it finished installing, I clicked Finish to exit the installer.

    So my question is, which of these seven clicks is the actual "one
    click"? :p
    Karl von Laudermann, Apr 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Re: One-Click Ruby Installer 182-15 for Windows

    Hello Karl,

    KvL> Ok, I downloaded the installer .exe file. I double-clicked the file to
    KvL> launch it. I clicked Next to continue, then I clicked "I Agree" at the
    KvL> Licence Agreement screen. Then I clicked Next at the Choose Components
    KvL> screen, and Install at the Choose Install Location screen. Finally,
    KvL> after it finished installing, I clicked Finish to exit the installer.

    KvL> So my question is, which of these seven clicks is the actual "one
    KvL> click"? :p

    You only need one click to do the installation - after you finished
    the setup correctly. It's the same on unix. Install with a single
    keystroke (after you typed "./configure ; make ; sudo make install" on
    the same command line) :p

    Just choose your words with wisdom (and a lawyer in the background).


    --
    Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
    Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
    CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
    Lothar Scholz, Apr 26, 2005
    #11
  12. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    Re: One-Click Ruby Installer 182-15 for Windows

    Karl von Laudermann wrote:
    > Ok, I downloaded the installer .exe file. I double-clicked the file to
    > launch it. I clicked Next to continue, then I clicked "I Agree" at the
    > Licence Agreement screen. Then I clicked Next at the Choose Components
    > screen, and Install at the Choose Install Location screen. Finally,
    > after it finished installing, I clicked Finish to exit the installer.
    >
    > So my question is, which of these seven clicks is the actual "one
    > click"? :p


    Yep, I've had the same thought myself... I just decided not to point it
    out! :)
    Curt Hibbs, Apr 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    Jon A. Lambert wrote:
    > Curt Hibbs wrote:
    >
    >> This release of the One-Click Ruby Installer for
    >> Windows is built from Ruby 1.8.2 final. It mostly
    >> upgrades included extensions and applications to
    >> their most recent versions.

    >
    >
    > Which compiler is used to produce this version?
    > VC 6, 7, 7.1?


    VC++ 7.1
    Curt Hibbs, Apr 26, 2005
    #13
  14. Curt Hibbs

    Guest

    Hi,

    At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:26:51 +0900,
    Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139947]:
    > > Which compiler is used to produce this version?
    > > VC 6, 7, 7.1?

    >
    > VC++ 7.1


    Have you confirmed that all extensions are built by VC++ 7.1,
    or linked to msvcr71.dll?

    --
    Nobu Nakada
    , Apr 26, 2005
    #14
  15. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:26:51 +0900,
    > Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139947]:
    >
    >>>Which compiler is used to produce this version?
    >>>VC 6, 7, 7.1?

    >>
    >>VC++ 7.1

    >
    >
    > Have you confirmed that all extensions are built by VC++ 7.1,
    > or linked to msvcr71.dll?


    All releases of the one-click installer in 2004 and 2005 have been built
    with vc++ 7.1, and most included extensions are built from source.

    The few that are now included from binaries (like FXRuby) have have not
    been checked. Should they be?

    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Apr 27, 2005
    #15
  16. Curt Hibbs wrote:
    >>> VC++ 7.1

    >>
    >>
    >> Have you confirmed that all extensions are built by VC++ 7.1,
    >> or linked to msvcr71.dll?

    >
    > All releases of the one-click installer in 2004 and 2005 have been
    > built with vc++ 7.1, and most included extensions are built from
    > source.
    > The few that are now included from binaries (like FXRuby) have have
    > not been checked. Should they be?
    >


    I do see the VC 6.0 RTL and STL are in the distro (msvcrt.dll and
    msvcp60.dll) so that should be okay if there are VC 6.0 extensions.

    I was wondering as I use the Borland compiler for my ruby extensions and
    since many windows users are probably using your installation, I should
    probably distribute Borland RTL with my extensions or try to make final with
    VC7.1.

    --
    J. Lambert
    Jon A. Lambert, Apr 27, 2005
    #16
  17. Curt Hibbs

    Guest

    Hi,

    At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:32:55 +0900,
    Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139990]:
    > > Have you confirmed that all extensions are built by VC++ 7.1,
    > > or linked to msvcr71.dll?

    >
    > All releases of the one-click installer in 2004 and 2005 have been built
    > with vc++ 7.1, and most included extensions are built from source.
    >
    > The few that are now included from binaries (like FXRuby) have have not
    > been checked. Should they be?


    Yes, definitely. Mixing usage of runtime DLL causes unexpected
    results. And recent versions change the ruby DLL name and the
    site-wide library directory according to the runtime to get rid
    of such hazard.

    --
    Nobu Nakada
    , Apr 27, 2005
    #17
  18. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:32:55 +0900,
    > Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139990]:
    >
    >>>Have you confirmed that all extensions are built by VC++ 7.1,
    >>>or linked to msvcr71.dll?

    >>
    >>All releases of the one-click installer in 2004 and 2005 have been built
    >>with vc++ 7.1, and most included extensions are built from source.
    >>
    >>The few that are now included from binaries (like FXRuby) have have not
    >>been checked. Should they be?

    >
    >
    > Yes, definitely. Mixing usage of runtime DLL causes unexpected
    > results. And recent versions change the ruby DLL name and the
    > site-wide library directory according to the runtime to get rid
    > of such hazard.


    Hmmm.... looks like I need to start building *all* extensions from
    source to ensure this.

    Thanks,
    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Apr 27, 2005
    #18
  19. Hello Curt,

    CH> wrote:
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:32:55 +0900,
    >> Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139990]:
    >>
    >>>>Have you confirmed that all extensions are built by VC++ 7.1,
    >>>>or linked to msvcr71.dll?
    >>>
    >>>All releases of the one-click installer in 2004 and 2005 have been built
    >>>with vc++ 7.1, and most included extensions are built from source.
    >>>
    >>>The few that are now included from binaries (like FXRuby) have have not
    >>>been checked. Should they be?

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, definitely. Mixing usage of runtime DLL causes unexpected
    >> results. And recent versions change the ruby DLL name and the
    >> site-wide library directory according to the runtime to get rid
    >> of such hazard.


    CH> Hmmm.... looks like I need to start building *all* extensions from
    CH> source to ensure this.

    Use a tool like the "depends.exe" from older MSVC versions and look
    what DLL's are required. You don't need to rebuild all extensions.


    --
    Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
    Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
    CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
    Lothar Scholz, Apr 27, 2005
    #19
  20. Curt Hibbs

    Guest

    Hi,

    At Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:39:26 +0900,
    Lothar Scholz wrote in [ruby-talk:140089]:
    > CH> Hmmm.... looks like I need to start building *all* extensions from
    > CH> source to ensure this.
    >
    > Use a tool like the "depends.exe" from older MSVC versions and look
    > what DLL's are required. You don't need to rebuild all extensions.


    $ ruby -e 'Dir["**/*.{dll,so}"].each {|so|
    IO.popen("dumpbin -imports #{so}"){|f|
    f.grep(/^\s*(ms\w+\.dll)\s*$/i){
    dll=$1;puts "#{so}: #{dll}" if /msvcr71/i !~ dll
    }
    }
    }'
    bin/libeay32.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    bin/libssl32.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    bin/msvcp60.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    bin/ssleay32.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    bin/tcl83.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    bin/tclpip83.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    bin/tk83.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    bin/zlib1.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    lib/tcl8.3/dde1.1/tcldde83.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    lib/tcl8.3/reg1.0/tclreg83.dll: MSVCRT.dll
    freeride/redist/i386-mswin32/ripper.so: MSVCRT.dll
    lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/fxruby-1.2.6-mswin32/ext/fox12/fox12.so: MSVCRT.dll
    lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/fxruby-1.2.6-mswin32/ext/fox12/fox12.so: MSVCP60.dll
    lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-msvcrt/glut.so: MSVCRT.dll
    lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/i386-msvcrt/opengl.so: MSVCRT.dll

    And, why zlib.so is under site_ruby?

    --
    Nobu Nakada
    , Apr 29, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Curt Hibbs
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    81
    Curt Hibbs
    Aug 17, 2004
  2. Curt Hibbs
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    344
    Lothar Scholz
    Aug 20, 2004
  3. Curt Hibbs
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    177
    Curt Hibbs
    Aug 18, 2004
  4. Curt Hibbs
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    174
    Robert McGovern
    Jan 7, 2005
  5. Curt Hibbs
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    297
    Bon Sid
    Sep 4, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page