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

[Curt Hibbs]

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

 

[Lyndon Samson]

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

 

[Matt Mower]

Hi Curt,

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

 

[Alexandru Popescu]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[quote Matt Mower:n 4/26/2005 4:16 PM]

Hi Curt,



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-----

 

[Curt Hibbs]

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]

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

 

[Matt Mower]

Hi Curt,

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

 

[Jon A. Lambert]

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

 

[Linus Sellberg]

- Included new build of readline 4.3.2
(I hope this fixes readline problems)

Yay! Thanks a lot

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.

 

[Karl von Laudermann]

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"?

 

[Lothar Scholz]

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"?

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)

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

 

[Curt Hibbs]

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"?

Yep, I've had the same thought myself... I just decided not to point it
out!

 

[Curt Hibbs]

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

VC++ 7.1

 

[nobu.nokada]

Hi,

At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:26:51 +0900,
Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139947]:

VC++ 7.1

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

 

[Curt Hibbs]

Hi,

At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 06:26:51 +0900,
Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139947]:

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

 

[Jon A. Lambert]

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.

 

[nobu.nokada]

Hi,

At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:32:55 +0900,
Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139990]:

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.

 

[Curt Hibbs]

Hi,

At Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:32:55 +0900,
Curt Hibbs wrote in [ruby-talk:139990]:

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

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Curt,

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.

 

[nobu.nokada]

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?