[ANN] Ruby Installer for Windows 1.8.2-14_RC5 (from Ruby 1.8.2 preview1)

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Curt Hibbs, Jul 21, 2004.

  1. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    Today Matz released the official preview1 for Ruby 1.8.2. This release
    candidate of the Ruby Installer for Windows was built from this new
    preview1.

    You can download this release candidate from:

    http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/

    You can check for reported problems (or report new problems) at:

    http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group_id=167


    What is the Ruby Installer for Windows?
    ---------------------------------------

    The Ruby Installer for Windows is a "one-click", self-contained Windows
    installer that contains the Ruby language itself, dozens of popular
    extensions and packages, a syntax-highlighting editor and execution
    environment, and a Windows help file that contains the full text of the
    book, "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide".


    Release 1.8.2-14:
    - This is a build of Ruby 1.8.2 preview1.
    - Changed the layout of the Windows registry
    entries.
    - Fixed a typo in a windows registry entry
    (bug 643).
    - Upgraded Expat to version 1.95.7
    - Upgraded Ruby-odbc to version 0.993
    - Upgraded DBI to 0.23
    - Upgraded FXRuby to version 1.0.29

    -----------------------------------------
    PS
    I know that I went from RC3 to RC5, skipping #4. It was a minor mistake on
    my part... such is life! :)
    Curt Hibbs, Jul 21, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Curt,

    I have done absolutely no research, so feel free to respond by
    telling me to do my research ;-) ...

    There's been a lot of talk lately about Oniguruma.

    How does it tie into the Windows Installer? Is it there - can we
    use it? Is it the default? Can it just be 'installed' - or does
    someone (not me, I don't know how to yet) have to compile it before it
    can be installed?

    Is 'the standard regexp library problem' even a problem?

    Are there any other licensing 'problems' that come about from
    what's in the One-click Installer?

    Thanks a ton for any response you can give!
    -Rich


    On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:37:58 +0900, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    > Today Matz released the official preview1 for Ruby 1.8.2. This release
    > candidate of the Ruby Installer for Windows was built from this new
    > preview1.
    >
    > You can download this release candidate from:
    >
    > http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/
    >
    > You can check for reported problems (or report new problems) at:
    >
    > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group_id=167
    >
    > What is the Ruby Installer for Windows?
    > ---------------------------------------
    >
    > The Ruby Installer for Windows is a "one-click", self-contained Windows
    > installer that contains the Ruby language itself, dozens of popular
    > extensions and packages, a syntax-highlighting editor and execution
    > environment, and a Windows help file that contains the full text of the
    > book, "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide".
    >
    > Release 1.8.2-14:
    > - This is a build of Ruby 1.8.2 preview1.
    > - Changed the layout of the Windows registry
    > entries.
    > - Fixed a typo in a windows registry entry
    > (bug 643).
    > - Upgraded Expat to version 1.95.7
    > - Upgraded Ruby-odbc to version 0.993
    > - Upgraded DBI to 0.23
    > - Upgraded FXRuby to version 1.0.29
    >
    > -----------------------------------------
    > PS
    > I know that I went from RC3 to RC5, skipping #4. It was a minor mistake on
    > my part... such is life! :)
    >
    >
    richard lyman, Jul 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    richard lyman wrote:
    >
    > Curt,
    >
    > I have done absolutely no research, so feel free to respond by
    > telling me to do my research ;-) ...
    >
    > There's been a lot of talk lately about Oniguruma.
    >
    > How does it tie into the Windows Installer? Is it there - can we
    > use it? Is it the default? Can it just be 'installed' - or does
    > someone (not me, I don't know how to yet) have to compile it before it
    > can be installed?


    No, Oniguruma is not in the Ruby Installer for Windows. The installer is
    just a precompiled version of the standard ruby distribution, some extension
    libraries (see the release notes), and the scite editor.

    > Is 'the standard regexp library problem' even a problem?
    >
    > Are there any other licensing 'problems' that come about from
    > what's in the One-click Installer?


    The licensing issues with the installer would identical to the issues you
    would have if you built Ruby and the included extensions yourself. I have no
    answer for you beyond that.

    > Thanks a ton for any response you can give!


    Your welcome!
    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Jul 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Curt Hibbs

    David Espada Guest

    El miércoles 21 de julio, Curt Hibbs escribió:
    > Today Matz released the official preview1 for Ruby 1.8.2. This release
    > candidate of the Ruby Installer for Windows was built from this new
    > preview1.


    Do it includes ruby-postgres precompiled?

    If it doesn't, which reason for not including?

    Thanks.

    David
    David Espada, Jul 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    David Espada wrote:
    >
    > El miércoles 21 de julio, Curt Hibbs escribió:
    > > Today Matz released the official preview1 for Ruby 1.8.2. This release
    > > candidate of the Ruby Installer for Windows was built from this new
    > > preview1.

    >
    > Do it includes ruby-postgres precompiled?
    >
    > If it doesn't, which reason for not including?


    No, ruby-postgres is not included, so you would have to install it yourself.

    A public debate over what should or should not be included has occurred
    several times in the past. As you might expect everyone has their own
    favorites. I'm sure that a very good case could be made for each possible
    inclusion, but it is simply not practical to include too many things, and
    its not possible satisfy everyone.

    The way I want to address this problem is to include RubyGems in the
    installer, and then encourage package authors to release their packages in
    RubyGems format. Then getting ruby-postgres installed on your system would
    be as simple as running the command "gem install ruby-postgres".

    Up until last week I was going to wait until a GUI interface to RubyGems was
    available, but that is probably too far off. So, a couple days ago I started
    a discussion with the RubyGems developers on whether or not I should include
    RubyGems in this 182-14 release. If the answer turns out to be yes, then I
    expect to have in 182-14 RC6.

    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Jul 22, 2004
    #5
  6. Hello Curt,

    CH> A public debate over what should or should not be included has occurred
    CH> several times in the past. As you might expect everyone has their own
    CH> favorites. I'm sure that a very good case could be made for each possible
    CH> inclusion, but it is simply not practical to include too many things, and
    CH> its not possible satisfy everyone.

    CH> The way I want to address this problem is to include RubyGems in the
    CH> installer, and then encourage package authors to release their packages in
    CH> RubyGems format. Then getting ruby-postgres installed on your system would
    CH> be as simple as running the command "gem install ruby-postgres".

    But this does still not help on binary extensions. And until the
    brain dead (assuming the build system for extensions is the same as as
    the one for the original interpreter) and completely undocumented binary
    build system "rb_configure.rb" etc. is changed this is a very serious issue.

    My personal request here is to include "wxruby.0.4"


    --
    Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
    Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
    CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
    Lothar Scholz, Jul 22, 2004
    #6
  7. Curt Hibbs

    Lyle Johnson Guest

    On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:54:00 +0900, Lothar Scholz
    <> wrote:

    > CH> The way I want to address this problem is to include RubyGems in the
    > CH> installer, and then encourage package authors to release their packages in
    > CH> RubyGems format. Then getting ruby-postgres installed on your system would
    > CH> be as simple as running the command "gem install ruby-postgres".
    >
    > But this does still not help on binary extensions.


    Sure it would, if the package authors provide both source and
    precompiled, "binary" gems for their packages. I don't know what
    specific issues come into play with the ruby-postgres package, but
    I've been experimenting with this in the alpha releases of FXRuby 1.2
    and it seems to be working well.
    Lyle Johnson, Jul 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Hi Curt,

    Thanks for the package. I guess it's very convenient for Microsoft users.

    Just a question... do you plan to provide Ruby/GTK2 some day? GTK2
    works great on Windows and I believe it would be interesting to ship
    Ruby bindings for it, since you already deliver FOX bindings.

    (so there is no jalous :)

    Cheers,

    --
    Laurent

    On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 05:37:58 +0900, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    > Today Matz released the official preview1 for Ruby 1.8.2. This release
    > candidate of the Ruby Installer for Windows was built from this new
    > preview1.
    >
    > You can download this release candidate from:
    >
    > http://rubyinstaller.rubyforge.org/
    >
    > You can check for reported problems (or report new problems) at:
    >
    > http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?group_id=167
    >
    > What is the Ruby Installer for Windows?
    > ---------------------------------------
    >
    > The Ruby Installer for Windows is a "one-click", self-contained Windows
    > installer that contains the Ruby language itself, dozens of popular
    > extensions and packages, a syntax-highlighting editor and execution
    > environment, and a Windows help file that contains the full text of the
    > book, "Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmer's Guide".
    >
    > Release 1.8.2-14:
    > - This is a build of Ruby 1.8.2 preview1.
    > - Changed the layout of the Windows registry
    > entries.
    > - Fixed a typo in a windows registry entry
    > (bug 643).
    > - Upgraded Expat to version 1.95.7
    > - Upgraded Ruby-odbc to version 0.993
    > - Upgraded DBI to 0.23
    > - Upgraded FXRuby to version 1.0.29
    >
    > -----------------------------------------
    > PS
    > I know that I went from RC3 to RC5, skipping #4. It was a minor mistake on
    > my part... such is life! :)
    >
    >
    Laurent Sansonetti, Jul 22, 2004
    #8
  9. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    Lothar Scholz wrote:
    >
    > Hello Curt,
    >
    > CH> A public debate over what should or should not be included
    > has occurred
    > CH> several times in the past. As you might expect everyone has their own
    > CH> favorites. I'm sure that a very good case could be made for
    > each possible
    > CH> inclusion, but it is simply not practical to include too many
    > things, and
    > CH> its not possible satisfy everyone.
    >
    > CH> The way I want to address this problem is to include RubyGems in the
    > CH> installer, and then encourage package authors to release
    > their packages in
    > CH> RubyGems format. Then getting ruby-postgres installed on your
    > system would
    > CH> be as simple as running the command "gem install ruby-postgres".
    >
    > But this does still not help on binary extensions. And until the
    > brain dead (assuming the build system for extensions is the same as
    > the one for the original interpreter) and completely undocumented binary
    > build system "rb_configure.rb" etc. is changed this is a very
    > serious issue.
    >
    > My personal request here is to include "wxruby.0.4"


    RubyGems *does* support platform-specific binary gems. This was an issue
    that I brought up early on with the RubyGems developers precisely because I
    wanted to package up wxRuby as a set of platform-specific binary gems
    (although that hasn't happened yet). Do you think that wxRuby is mature
    enough?

    Curt

    PS
    I still need to resolve your problem with TCL/TK extension. I sent you a
    private email to your [mailinglists at scriptolutions dot com] address about
    this, but perhaps it got spam-filtered into oblivion. After the postings
    from you and [nobu.nokada at softhome dot net], it was not obvious to me
    what the correct solution should be. If you could send me your email address
    (send to curt at hibbs dot com), I will re-send you that email.
    Thanks, -curt
    Curt Hibbs, Jul 22, 2004
    #9
  10. Curt,

    I have a GUI for RubyGems...

    ... if you promise not to laugh at the code, I'll privately send
    you what I've got and you can tell me what to do to get it up to the
    specs you'd want/need for inclusion in the Windows Installer.

    The way I envision it is that the RubyGem interface would be a
    compiled binary for Windows, that could have a link in the Programs
    menu... then for the average 10yr old, or mom or dad who wanted to
    program, they could easily add libraries on to their Ruby
    installation... Double-click the RubyGem interface... wait for the
    list to load... select the program, see all versions and a
    description, select the version to install... click the install
    button... you're done. Obviously there would be more options for
    advanced users... but I really like the idea of making the
    installation of add-on libraries as simple as the installation of
    Ruby.

    I really want RubyGems in the Windows One-Click... and I _really_
    think RubyGems should have a GUI... i.e. I really want to send you my
    code, have it reviewed, get everything done that you need, and package
    it with the Windows One-Click.

    -Rich
    P.s. - Windows One-Click.... WOC? :) Sounds like Wok... which I know
    is Chinese, and not Japanese... but it's an interesting acronym. Would
    that make it... LOC (Linux...), MOC, (Mac...) ... anyway... :)


    On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:40:05 +0900, Curt Hibbs <> wrote:
    > Lothar Scholz wrote:
    > >
    > > Hello Curt,
    > >
    > > CH> A public debate over what should or should not be included
    > > has occurred
    > > CH> several times in the past. As you might expect everyone has their own
    > > CH> favorites. I'm sure that a very good case could be made for
    > > each possible
    > > CH> inclusion, but it is simply not practical to include too many
    > > things, and
    > > CH> its not possible satisfy everyone.
    > >
    > > CH> The way I want to address this problem is to include RubyGems in the
    > > CH> installer, and then encourage package authors to release
    > > their packages in
    > > CH> RubyGems format. Then getting ruby-postgres installed on your
    > > system would
    > > CH> be as simple as running the command "gem install ruby-postgres".
    > >
    > > But this does still not help on binary extensions. And until the
    > > brain dead (assuming the build system for extensions is the same as
    > > the one for the original interpreter) and completely undocumented binary
    > > build system "rb_configure.rb" etc. is changed this is a very
    > > serious issue.
    > >
    > > My personal request here is to include "wxruby.0.4"

    >
    > RubyGems *does* support platform-specific binary gems. This was an issue
    > that I brought up early on with the RubyGems developers precisely because I
    > wanted to package up wxRuby as a set of platform-specific binary gems
    > (although that hasn't happened yet). Do you think that wxRuby is mature
    > enough?
    >
    > Curt
    >
    > PS
    > I still need to resolve your problem with TCL/TK extension. I sent you a
    > private email to your [mailinglists at scriptolutions dot com] address about
    > this, but perhaps it got spam-filtered into oblivion. After the postings
    > from you and [nobu.nokada at softhome dot net], it was not obvious to me
    > what the correct solution should be. If you could send me your email address
    > (send to curt at hibbs dot com), I will re-send you that email.
    > Thanks, -curt
    >
    >
    richard lyman, Jul 22, 2004
    #10
  11. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    richard lyman wrote:
    >
    > Curt,
    >
    > I have a GUI for RubyGems...
    >
    > ... if you promise not to laugh at the code, I'll privately send
    > you what I've got and you can tell me what to do to get it up to the
    > specs you'd want/need for inclusion in the Windows Installer.


    Yes, please do send it along to [curt at hibbs dot com].

    > The way I envision it is that the RubyGem interface would be a
    > compiled binary for Windows, that could have a link in the Programs
    > menu... then for the average 10yr old, or mom or dad who wanted to
    > program, they could easily add libraries on to their Ruby
    > installation... Double-click the RubyGem interface... wait for the
    > list to load... select the program, see all versions and a
    > description, select the version to install... click the install
    > button... you're done. Obviously there would be more options for
    > advanced users... but I really like the idea of making the
    > installation of add-on libraries as simple as the installation of
    > Ruby.


    Well, we're definitely on the same page here.

    > I really want RubyGems in the Windows One-Click... and I _really_
    > think RubyGems should have a GUI... i.e. I really want to send you my
    > code, have it reviewed, get everything done that you need, and package
    > it with the Windows One-Click.
    >
    > -Rich
    > P.s. - Windows One-Click.... WOC? :) Sounds like Wok... which I know
    > is Chinese, and not Japanese... but it's an interesting acronym. Would
    > that make it... LOC (Linux...), MOC, (Mac...) ... anyway... :)


    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Jul 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Hello richard,

    rl> Curt,

    rl> I have a GUI for RubyGems...

    rl> ... if you promise not to laugh at the code, I'll privately send
    rl> you what I've got and you can tell me what to do to get it up to the
    rl> specs you'd want/need for inclusion in the Windows Installer.

    I have done some testing for Arachno Ruby. But i will wait until
    RubyGems 1.0 is released. A stable backward compatible interface
    would be indeed a nice thing, especially now where i get more and more
    downloads from files32.com, download.com etc. I can see in my
    webserver logs that the first thing they do is to press the "download
    ruby" button in my program (it's a redirect on my webserver for the
    case that www.ruby-lang.org is down or changing the name).

    So for these ruby newbies it would be great if they can have access
    to Ruby-GTK, Ruby-ImageMagic and all the other stuff without reading
    man pages.


    --
    Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
    Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
    CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
    Lothar Scholz, Jul 22, 2004
    #12
  13. il Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:25:10 +0900, Laurent Sansonetti
    <> ha scritto::

    >Hi Curt,
    >
    >Thanks for the package. I guess it's very convenient for Microsoft users.
    >
    >Just a question... do you plan to provide Ruby/GTK2 some day? GTK2
    >works great on Windows and I believe it would be interesting to ship
    >Ruby bindings for it, since you already deliver FOX bindings.
    >
    >(so there is no jalous :)
    >


    on the lines of the hread, I think the best thing would be to package
    up all the ruby-gnome2 stuff that works on windows in some gems, and
    maybe provide a choice at install time something like cygwin does
    gabriele renzi, Jul 22, 2004
    #13
  14. il Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:28:26 GMT, gabriele renzi
    <> ha scritto::

    >on the lines of the hread, I think the best thing would be to package
    >up all the ruby-gnome2 stuff that works on windows in some gems, and
    >maybe provide a choice at install time something like cygwin does


    I mean, when the one click gets installed, pop up a gui with "select
    additional packages.."
    gabriele renzi, Jul 22, 2004
    #14
  15. Curt Hibbs

    Curt Hibbs Guest

    gabriele renzi WROTE:
    >
    > il Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:25:10 +0900, Laurent Sansonetti
    > <> ha scritto::
    >
    > >Hi Curt,
    > >
    > >Thanks for the package. I guess it's very convenient for

    > Microsoft users.
    > >
    > >Just a question... do you plan to provide Ruby/GTK2 some day? GTK2
    > >works great on Windows and I believe it would be interesting to ship
    > >Ruby bindings for it, since you already deliver FOX bindings.
    > >
    > >(so there is no jalous :)
    > >

    >
    > on the lines of the hread, I think the best thing would be to package
    > up all the ruby-gnome2 stuff that works on windows in some gems, and
    > maybe provide a choice at install time something like cygwin does


    That's the approach I want to take with almost all extensions -- provide
    add-ons through RubyGems.

    Curt
    Curt Hibbs, Jul 22, 2004
    #15
  16. Re: [ANN] Ruby Installer for Windows 1.8.2-14_RC5 (from Ruby1.8.2 preview1)

    On 7/22/04 9:05 AM, "Lyle Johnson" <> wrote:

    > On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:54:00 +0900, Lothar Scholz
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> CH> The way I want to address this problem is to include RubyGems in the
    >> CH> installer, and then encourage package authors to release their packages
    >> in
    >> CH> RubyGems format. Then getting ruby-postgres installed on your system
    >> would
    >> CH> be as simple as running the command "gem install ruby-postgres".
    >>
    >> But this does still not help on binary extensions.

    >
    > Sure it would, if the package authors provide both source and
    > precompiled, "binary" gems for their packages. I don't know what
    > specific issues come into play with the ruby-postgres package, but
    > I've been experimenting with this in the alpha releases of FXRuby 1.2
    > and it seems to be working well.
    >
    >


    And, we are adding to Gems the ability to utilize the platform attribute
    within the gemspec to select the appropriate binary vs. source gem (or give
    the user the option) if provided. So if Lyle puts:

    fxruby-1.2.0.gem
    #=> spec.platform = Gem::platform::RUBY

    fxruby-1.2.0-win32.gem
    #=> spec.platform = Gem::platform::WIN32

    It will pick (not based on the name, that is convention) the fxruby 1.2.0
    for your platform if one exists.

    If a Linux user did:

    gem install -r fxruby

    RubyGems would download fxruby-1.2.0.gem and it would build it (using the
    extconf.rb, etc) upon install from source.

    If a Windows user did:

    gem install -r fxruby

    RubyGems would download fxruby-1.2.0-win32.gem and it would just install (no
    building necessary).

    This automatic selection capability will be in Gems SOON (hopefully in a
    week), but as Lyle said, you can currently build and install gems that are
    binary but its a manual choosing process.

    -rich
    Richard Kilmer, Jul 22, 2004
    #16
  17. Perfect!!

    I will love that functionality.

    I had that very problem with the current setup (and I understand that
    you've said that this is already being changed), is that when I ran
    the command (something like):

    gem install --remote fxruby

    It got the version that had to be compiled - which I couldn't use...
    Lyle helped point out that I'd need to manually select the binary
    version (which you've mentioned will be automated), by running the
    command

    gem install --remote fxruby-1.2.1-mswin32

    ... and then it worked perfectly.

    So... I'm excited for the functionality that will automatically know
    that I'm on windows and that I want the binary, precompiled, version
    of the package.

    I have a question though - what about the list of Gems? Can the basic
    listing of remotely installable gems indicate the existance of a
    binary version? In other words, when I run the command:

    gem list --remote

    Can I get some indication of the existance (or non-existance) of the
    binary versions?

    I'm hoping to avoid useability problems when a package is listed in
    the GUI as 'installable', but it really isn't, since there's no binary
    version... I hope I'm making sense...

    I want you guys to know that your work is really helping the
    distribution-ability of Ruby.

    -Rich


    On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:08:21 +0900, Richard Kilmer <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > On 7/22/04 9:05 AM, "Lyle Johnson" <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:54:00 +0900, Lothar Scholz
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> CH> The way I want to address this problem is to include RubyGems in the
    > >> CH> installer, and then encourage package authors to release their packages
    > >> in
    > >> CH> RubyGems format. Then getting ruby-postgres installed on your system
    > >> would
    > >> CH> be as simple as running the command "gem install ruby-postgres".
    > >>
    > >> But this does still not help on binary extensions.

    > >
    > > Sure it would, if the package authors provide both source and
    > > precompiled, "binary" gems for their packages. I don't know what
    > > specific issues come into play with the ruby-postgres package, but
    > > I've been experimenting with this in the alpha releases of FXRuby 1.2
    > > and it seems to be working well.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > And, we are adding to Gems the ability to utilize the platform attribute
    > within the gemspec to select the appropriate binary vs. source gem (or give
    > the user the option) if provided. So if Lyle puts:
    >
    > fxruby-1.2.0.gem
    > #=> spec.platform = Gem::platform::RUBY
    >
    > fxruby-1.2.0-win32.gem
    > #=> spec.platform = Gem::platform::WIN32
    >
    > It will pick (not based on the name, that is convention) the fxruby 1.2.0
    > for your platform if one exists.
    >
    > If a Linux user did:
    >
    > gem install -r fxruby
    >
    > RubyGems would download fxruby-1.2.0.gem and it would build it (using the
    > extconf.rb, etc) upon install from source.
    >
    > If a Windows user did:
    >
    > gem install -r fxruby
    >
    > RubyGems would download fxruby-1.2.0-win32.gem and it would just install (no
    > building necessary).
    >
    > This automatic selection capability will be in Gems SOON (hopefully in a
    > week), but as Lyle said, you can currently build and install gems that are
    > binary but its a manual choosing process.
    >
    > -rich
    >
    >
    richard lyman, Jul 22, 2004
    #17
  18. Re: [ANN] Ruby Installer for Windows 1.8.2-14_RC5 (from Ruby1.8.2 preview1)

    On 7/22/04 12:49 PM, "richard lyman" <> wrote:

    > I have a question though - what about the list of Gems? Can the basic
    > listing of remotely installable gems indicate the existance of a
    > binary version? In other words, when I run the command:
    >
    > gem list --remote
    >
    > Can I get some indication of the existance (or non-existance) of the
    > binary versions?


    Yeah...we will work that out. It will likely be listed as two gems (one
    source, one binary), but the UI (and the list function) will perhaps
    highlight the fact that the binary gem for your platform is available.
    We'll figure it out so its simple :)

    >
    > I'm hoping to avoid useability problems when a package is listed in
    > the GUI as 'installable', but it really isn't, since there's no binary
    > version... I hope I'm making sense...


    You are, and we agree...the goal is simplicity of use...hope we reach that
    goal!

    >
    > I want you guys to know that your work is really helping the
    > distribution-ability of Ruby.


    Thanks, and the main thing that will help is the whole community
    contributing gems!!! So, code and distribute!!!

    -rich
    Richard Kilmer, Jul 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Curt Hibbs

    Lyle Johnson Guest

    On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 01:08:21 +0900, Richard Kilmer <> wrote:

    > And, we are adding to Gems the ability to utilize the platform attribute
    > within the gemspec to select the appropriate binary vs. source gem (or give
    > the user the option) if provided.


    As long as we're on the subject, are there any plans to include (and
    make use of) metadata about the Ruby version for which a binary gem
    was built? If I build a binary gem against Ruby 1.8.1 and you try to
    use it with a different Ruby version, it's likely not to work.
    Lyle Johnson, Jul 22, 2004
    #19
  20. "Curt Hibbs" <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Lothar Scholz wrote:

    [...]
    > > But this does still not help on binary extensions. And until the
    > > brain dead (assuming the build system for extensions is the same as
    > > the one for the original interpreter) and completely undocumented binary
    > > build system "rb_configure.rb" etc. is changed this is a very
    > > serious issue.
    > >
    > > My personal request here is to include "wxruby.0.4"

    >
    > RubyGems *does* support platform-specific binary gems. This was an issue
    > that I brought up early on with the RubyGems developers precisely because I
    > wanted to package up wxRuby as a set of platform-specific binary gems
    > (although that hasn't happened yet). Do you think that wxRuby is mature
    > enough?


    RubyGems supports binary gems in the sense that you can put any file
    type, including binary, into a gem. But there is no useful support
    for binary gems; I asked in [ruby-talk:104609] and [ruby-talk:104486]
    and in private email, all without reply. (By "binary" I mean
    precompiled gems.)

    For my gems, I experimented with a mypackage-i686-linux-ruby18-1.2.3.gem
    naming scheme but decided it was too polluting to the global gem list
    since every platform must have a separate, "unrelated" gem. The naming
    scheme mypackage-1.2.3-i686-linux-ruby18.gem is a "Malformed version
    number" error. The precompiled gems were also about twice as large as
    a .tbz2 of the same files.

    I eventually decided to stick with tarballs with .so files until
    rubygems formally supports precompiled extensions.

    This could be implemented by recognizing a -linux-i686-ruby18 suffix,
    for example. Currently, when mypackage-1.2.3-i686-linux-ruby18.gem
    exists on gems.rubyforge.org/gems/, there is a 404 Not Found error
    for "gem -i mypackage". A first step could be to find gems matching
    the host platform suffix when the primary search fails or when the
    user requests a binary gem.
    Jeff Mitchell, Jul 22, 2004
    #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. timw.google
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    511
    Serge Orlov
    May 11, 2006
  2. Curt Hibbs
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    126
    Curt Hibbs
    Oct 12, 2005
  3. Curt Hibbs
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    145
    Dave Burt
    Feb 1, 2006
  4. Curt Hibbs
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    106
    Curt Hibbs
    Oct 1, 2006
  5. Yugui (Yuki Sonoda)
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    122
    Roger Pack
    Aug 3, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page