1.9 Installer

Bruno Sousa

unread,

Jul 30, 2009, 3:23:33 PM7/30/09

to

Why they don't release a ruby 1.8.7 or ruby 1.9 installer for windows?

regards
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Luis Lavena

unread,

Jul 30, 2009, 4:13:02 PM7/30/09

to

On Jul 30, 4:23 pm, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why they don't release a ruby 1.8.7 or ruby 1.9 installer for windows?
>
> regards

http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=33233

http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/06/28/rubyinstaller-preview1-released/

--
Luis Lavena

Luis Lavena

unread,

Jul 30, 2009, 4:14:17 PM7/30/09

to

Forgot to include my favorite:

http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/05/05/rubyinstaller-state-of-one-click/

--
Luis Lavena

Bruno Sousa

unread,

Jul 30, 2009, 4:39:00 PM7/30/09

to

Thanks!

Bruno Sousa

unread,

Jul 30, 2009, 4:48:57 PM7/30/09

to

What differs those binaries ones from a installed (from one-click) ruby
?

Luis Lavena

unread,

Jul 30, 2009, 6:35:19 PM7/30/09

to

On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What differs those binaries ones from a installed (from one-click) ruby
> ?

The ones installed from former One-Click are built using Microsoft
Visual C 6.0, that defines the Ruby platform as i386-mswin32.

The new ones are built with MinGW (GCC) and the platform is i386-
mingw32

Both remains binary compatible because they link to the exact same C
Runtime library (MSVCRT.DLL) but sometimes the gems compiled or built
against VC6 will not work on MinGW, or viceversa.

http://blog.mmediasys.com/2008/08/10/rubygems-with-power-comes-responsibility/

The new shape of installer and the reason for be that way is better
explained and covered here:

http://wiki.github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller/faq

I made this announcement a few weeks ago:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/c38255aacd68d6dc

But you can search for all my answers at google groups (just search
for Ruby Installer)

Hope all this information helps.

--
Luis Lavena

Bruno Sousa

unread,

Jul 30, 2009, 8:34:04 PM7/30/09

to

Thanks for your reply Luis!
I sincerely appreciate your job developing ruby installer.

Actually, my question is about what differs this
http://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/18566/ruby186-25.exe from this
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/binaries/mswin32/ruby-1.8.6-i386-mswin32.zip
except for the fact there is a instalation wizard :P

regards

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Luis Lavena

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 12:46:44 AM7/31/09

to

On Jul 30, 9:34 pm, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for your reply Luis!
> I sincerely appreciate your job developing ruby installer.
>

> Actually, my question is about what differs thishttp://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/18566/ruby186-25.exefrom thisftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/binaries/mswin32/ruby-1.8.6-i386-msw...

> except for the fact there is a instalation wizard :P

Well, you need then to better format your questions, because I read
your messages twice and couldn't find that specific question.

The file available at ruby-lang FTP server is not a complete and
functional installation of Ruby.

I requested Ruby-Core and website maintainers to state that at the
downloads page:

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/

"Please note that some of the above binaries will require manual
download and installation of additional components detailed on this
page. Please ensure you’ve followed/performed these steps prior
reporting a bug.

The One-Click Installer does not require these additional tasks."

And my request and the reasoning behind it:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/24571

Playing more dumb on your question, you're pointing to a Ruby
installer version 1.8.5, which differs A LOT from 1.8.6 ir 1.9.1,
which I'm not going to explain over here.

--
Luis Lavena

Bruno Sousa

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 8:03:07 AM7/31/09

to

Luis Lavena wrote:
> Playing more dumb on your question, you're pointing to a Ruby
> installer version 1.8.5, which differs A LOT from 1.8.6 ir 1.9.1,
> which I'm not going to explain over here.

Thanks for your reply.

Look for "Ruby Em Windows" at http://www.ruby-lang.org/pt/downloads/

Ruby 1.8.6 One-Click Installer (md5: 3b768d48ed4e25991762e8c76e54f28d)
Versão Estável (recomendada)
Ruby 1.8.6 Binary (md5: d4ca9d387614108156289fb6c4208dd0) Versão Estável
(recomendada)

Booth are links that I posted here. Where is version 1.8.5 that you
mentioned?

> And my request and the reasoning behind it:
>
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/24571

Those libs that are not in binaries zip file are very important. Why
ruby developers didn't include them in binaries zip file?

Luis Lavena

unread,

Jul 31, 2009, 8:07:55 AM7/31/09

to

On Jul 31, 9:03 am, Bruno Sousa <brgso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Luis Lavena wrote:
> > Playing more dumb on your question, you're pointing to a Ruby
> > installer version 1.8.5, which differs A LOT from 1.8.6 ir 1.9.1,
> > which I'm not going to explain over here.
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>

> Look for "Ruby Em Windows" athttp://www.ruby-lang.org/pt/downloads/

>
> Ruby 1.8.6 One-Click Installer (md5: 3b768d48ed4e25991762e8c76e54f28d)
> Versão Estável (recomendada)
> Ruby 1.8.6 Binary (md5: d4ca9d387614108156289fb6c4208dd0) Versão Estável
> (recomendada)
>
> Booth are links that I posted here. Where is version 1.8.5 that you
> mentioned?

"> Actually, my question is about what differs
thishttp://rubyforge.org/frs/download.php/18566/ruby186-25.exe"

Sorry, 186-25 confused me. Anyhow..

> > And my request and the reasoning behind it:
>
> >http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/24571
>
> Those libs that are not in binaries zip file are very important. Why
> ruby developers didn't include them in binaries zip file?

Dunno, ask them, tried since 2006 without any success.

--
Luis Lavena