Forum: Ruby one click annihilator

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
rhubarb (Guest)
on 2006-05-29 21:11
Time to upgrade from 1.8.2 to 1.8.4 finally.
Can't find any upgrade docs anywhere for windows. Okay, I'll just
install the new one-click installer.

Whoops, installed it in c:\ruby instead of overtop of c:\ruby182
No problem, I'll just uninstall it.
...
Taking some time, what's going on in that window ...

Oh, it's deleting everything EVERYTHING below c:\ruby

Including all of my Rails work, everything else I had installed and was
playing with. Nothing backed up.

Please Curt, work on the uninstaller too.
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-05-30 01:44
(Received via mailing list)
rhubarb wrote:

I believe one can submit bug reports, and feature requests, here:

http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyinstaller/

And probably also offer to help fix bugs and add features.


--
James B.

"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is
not worth knowing."
   - A. Perlis
Paul D. Kraus (Guest)
on 2006-05-30 01:54
(Received via mailing list)
>
>
> Oh, it's deleting everything EVERYTHING below c:\ruby
>
> Including all of my Rails work, everything else I had installed and was
> playing with. Nothing backed up.



Thats why the made subversion repositories :)
Not trying to pour salt on your wounds but honestly they are life savers
and
fairly easy to setup and maintain.

Don't leave home without one.

Paul
tony summerfelt (Guest)
on 2006-05-30 02:49
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, 30 May 2006 05:13:48 +0900, you wrote:


>Oh, it's deleting everything EVERYTHING below c:\ruby

>Including all of my Rails work, everything else I had installed and was
>playing with. Nothing backed up.

i've been caught like that with another program. i know that sinking
feeling you get when the full realization of what just happens hits
you :)

that was a few years ago, i've been using norton's goback since then.
it has saved my butt a number of times. a good deal for $50.

i keep regular backups, but with the peace of mind it gives me i'd
easily pay $200 for it.


http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org
Curt H. (Guest)
on 2006-05-30 06:47
(Received via mailing list)
We'll add an alert dialog telling you that the entire dircetory will be
deleted and giving you the option to proceed or abort.

Curt
Dave B. (Guest)
on 2006-05-30 07:06
(Received via mailing list)
Curt H. wrote:
> We'll add an alert dialog telling you that the entire dircetory will be
> deleted and giving you the option to proceed or abort.

FWIW, I far prefer this proposal to the alternative of _not_ deleting
the whole installation directory.

Cheers,
Dave
Gregory B. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 20:08
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/29/06, Dave B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Curt H. wrote:
> > We'll add an alert dialog telling you that the entire dircetory will be
> > deleted and giving you the option to proceed or abort.
>
> FWIW, I far prefer this proposal to the alternative of _not_ deleting
> the whole installation directory.

I think that might get mucky, since the directory structure might
change from release to release and things like that.

My employer always sticks ruby scripts I write for him in with the
ruby distribution.  This drives me bonkers, I have no idea why he does
this.

Is this common practice on Windows?  I'd prefer to leave my code OUT
of places where it can get mixed in with an active distribution.  I
don't know, maybe it's just an
(only-uses-windows-when-absolutely-necessary) type coders point of
view, but sliding my scripts into C:\ruby seems to be begging for
problems.
Mat S. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 20:21
(Received via mailing list)
On May 31, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Gregory B. wrote:

> change from release to release and things like that.
> problems.
I think it comes from the fairly useless "home" directories on
windows (and Mac OS actually).  You have My Documents (Documents on
Mac), but almost every program tries to stick stuff in there it
shouldn't.  So I find people try to avoid it cause they don't know
what half of it is.
-Mat
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 20:24
(Received via mailing list)
Gregory B. wrote:
> I think that might get mucky, since the directory structure might
> change from release to release and things like that.
>
> My employer always sticks ruby scripts I write for him in with the
> ruby distribution.  This drives me bonkers, I have no idea why he does
> this.

Where do people put their custom libs, the code they want available to
all their Ruby apps?  I tend to put them in site_ruby.

This is the problem with nuking c:\ruby.  It is the parent for all gems
and third-party libs.


--
James B.

"Judge a man by his questions, rather than his answers."
  - Voltaire
Bill G. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 20:34
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, James B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > I think that might get mucky, since the directory structure might
> > change from release to release and things like that.
> >
> > My employer always sticks ruby scripts I write for him in with the
> > ruby distribution.  This drives me bonkers, I have no idea why he does
> > this.
>
> Where do people put their custom libs, the code they want available to
> all their Ruby apps?  I tend to put them in site_ruby.

I was under the impression that they 'belonged' site_ruby.

> This is the problem with nuking c:\ruby.  It is the parent for all gems
> and third-party libs.

I've recently solved this issue (for my own code) by doing all of my
own dev in one main directory, with subdirectories for each
project/library, then using a Rake task to 'install' the code where it
belongs.

This gives me one main directory that I controll with all of my work.
The finished product can end up in the site_ruby directory, or some
client's local web directory, etc.  I always have my main source with
notes seperate, covered by subversion, and on a scheduled backup (yes,
I'm paranoid.  I've learned to be over the years).
Curt H. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 20:47
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, James B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >> the whole installation directory.
> all their Ruby apps?  I tend to put them in site_ruby.
>
> This is the problem with nuking c:\ruby.  It is the parent for all gems
> and third-party libs.


Understandable, but there is also no guarantee that these gems/libs will
be
compatible with the next Ruby release.

Curt
Austin Z. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 21:56
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, James B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Where do people put their custom libs, the code they want available to
> all their Ruby apps?  I tend to put them in site_ruby.
>
> This is the problem with nuking c:\ruby.  It is the parent for all gems
> and third-party libs.

I put them in the ruby application directory ... after I have them in
SVN or CVS. ;)

-austin
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 22:09
(Received via mailing list)
Austin Z. wrote:
> SVN or CVS. ;)
You put your third-party gems into SVN/CVS?  After running 'gem install
<gem_name>' ?
Michal S. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 22:25
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, Mat S. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> >> the whole installation directory.
> > don't know, maybe it's just an
> > (only-uses-windows-when-absolutely-necessary) type coders point of
> > view, but sliding my scripts into C:\ruby seems to be begging for
> > problems.
>
> I think it comes from the fairly useless "home" directories on
> windows (and Mac OS actually).  You have My Documents (Documents on
> Mac), but almost every program tries to stick stuff in there it
> shouldn't.  So I find people try to avoid it cause they don't know
> what half of it is.

What is useless about ~ on OS X? You can stuff everything in there
just like any other *IX. And you get a nice shourtcut for ~ in the GUI
apps so there is no problem. And when you get hundreds of files in
there you can always find them as long as you got some idea what the
name was like :)

On Windows ~ is set to the profile directory which is not as nicely
accessible from the GUI. You can use desktop (or Documents) for
storing stuff. But admittedly Windows users are homeless :)

Thanks

Michal
Mat S. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 22:41
(Received via mailing list)
On May 31, 2006, at 2:24 PM, Michal S. wrote:

>> >> FWIW, I far prefer this proposal to the alternative of _not_
>> >
>> Mac), but almost every program tries to stick stuff in there it
> accessible from the GUI. You can use desktop (or Documents) for
> storing stuff. But admittedly Windows users are homeless :)
>
> Thanks
>
> Michal

I wasn't talking about ~, I'm talking about "~/Documents".  Which
would be a great idea if various software packages didn't put stuff
in it that should go in Library or elsewhere (e.g., Adobe CS, Office,
Virtual PC, Konfabulator)  Don't get me wrong, I don't blame OS X,
I'm just saying the same problem of polluted "*Documents" directories
exists on both platforms.  ~ on the other hand is left relatively
clean on OS X, and the ~ equivalent on Windows (last I checked) warns
you about using it if you try to browse to it which is pretty
prohibitive.  Either way, we're both right.  Isn't that grand.
-Mat
Austin Z. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 23:10
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, James B. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> <gem_name>' ?
No. I put *my* code in SVN/CVS. The problem that the OP mentioned was
that *his* code was in C:\ruby while his installation was in
C:\Ruby182. When he tried to install 1.8.4, it *defaulted* to C:\ruby
(which is the *real* bad behaviour; it should have defaulted to
1.8.4). Then he did an uninstall and it deleted everything -- without
prompting -- in C:\ruby.

Third-party gems ... if they're that important, I'll make sure I have
a list to bring my install back up to speed, but otherwise I just
reinstall them as I need them.

-austin
Ryan L. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 23:29
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, Austin Z. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> When he tried to install 1.8.4, it *defaulted* to C:\ruby
> (which is the *real* bad behaviour; it should have defaulted to
> 1.8.4). Then he did an uninstall and it deleted everything -- without
> prompting -- in C:\ruby.

I think C:\ruby is a reasonable default installation location. Adding
the version just makes it longer and ugly, IMO. Anyhow as of the
latest installer code, a user cannot install into an existing
directory, and the uninstall let's them know the whole installation
directory will be deleted.

If they have problems after that, it is just user error.

As others have discussed, I think it is smart to develop code outside
of the Ruby installation directory, keep it maintained in SVN or CVS,
and then have a rake task or other script install it into the Ruby lib
directory.

Ryan
Austin Z. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 23:35
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, Ryan L. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Austin Z. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> > When he tried to install 1.8.4, it *defaulted* to C:\ruby
> > (which is the *real* bad behaviour; it should have defaulted to
> > 1.8.4). Then he did an uninstall and it deleted everything -- without
> > prompting -- in C:\ruby.
> I think C:\ruby is a reasonable default installation location. Adding
> the version just makes it longer and ugly, IMO. Anyhow as of the
> latest installer code, a user cannot install into an existing
> directory, and the uninstall let's them know the whole installation
> directory will be deleted.

Um. That's not what I meant to say. It defaulted to C:\ruby but should
have defaulted to C:
\ruby182 which is where he had previously installed Ruby.

Why can't a user install into an existing directory? Does this mean if
I have Ruby 1.8.2 installed in C:\Apps\Ruby and want to install Ruby
1.8.4 there on top of it, I have to remove or uninstall 1.8.2 *first*?

-austin
Ryan L. (Guest)
on 2006-05-31 23:52
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, Austin Z. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
>
> Um. That's not what I meant to say. It defaulted to C:\ruby but should
> have defaulted to C:
> \ruby182 which is where he had previously installed Ruby.
>
> Why can't a user install into an existing directory? Does this mean if
> I have Ruby 1.8.2 installed in C:\Apps\Ruby and want to install Ruby
> 1.8.4 there on top of it, I have to remove or uninstall 1.8.2 *first*?

Yep. We have discussed this in other threads recently. For example see
this post of mine:

http://ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/194831

As well as others in that thread.

Ryan
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-06-01 00:58
(Received via mailing list)
Austin Z. wrote:

>  ...
> Why can't a user install into an existing directory? Does this mean if
> I have Ruby 1.8.2 installed in C:\Apps\Ruby and want to install Ruby
> 1.8.4 there on top of it, I have to remove or uninstall 1.8.2 *first*?

Yes.  And reinstall any code not included with the Ruby distro, such as
gems and other 3rd-party libs, that have been installed into that
directory path.


--
James B.

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - The Journal By & For Rubyists
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools
Austin Z. (Guest)
on 2006-06-01 01:54
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/31/06, Ryan L. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> http://ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/194831
>
> As well as others in that thread.

Hopefully, this will only be a 1.8.2 -> 1.8.4 oddity. It should *not*
be the case with compatible compiler versions.

-austin
Jeff P. (Guest)
on 2006-06-01 06:29
James, I really enjoy your quotes.  This one especially, having just
learned quite a lot about programming via ruby and a friend who insists
on explaining Haskel and "functional programming" to me.

This "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about
programming" quote seems to have a double meaning though.  Every
Wednesday, some guys come around with lawnmowers and weedwhackers. I
hear them buzzing away and see them sweating through the window of my
comfortable office. When I'm programming in C, the language makes me
want to stop programming and go join the lawn crew outside...does that
count?

jp


James B. wrote:
> rhubarb wrote:
>
> I believe one can submit bug reports, and feature requests, here:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubyinstaller/
>
> And probably also offer to help fix bugs and add features.
>
>
> --
> James B.
>
> "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming is
> not worth knowing."
>    - A. Perlis
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-06-01 07:03
(Received via mailing list)
Jeff P. wrote:
> James, I really enjoy your quotes.

Thank you.


> This one especially, having just
> learned quite a lot about programming via ruby and a friend who insists
> on explaining Haskel and "functional programming" to me.

Let us know how Haskell influences your Ruby.  Or vice versa.


>
> This "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about
> programming" quote seems to have a double meaning though.  Every
> Wednesday, some guys come around with lawnmowers and weedwhackers. I
> hear them buzzing away and see them sweating through the window of my
> comfortable office. When I'm programming in C, the language makes me
> want to stop programming and go join the lawn crew outside...does that
> count?

I know the feeling!


--
James B.

"A principle or axiom is of no value without the rules for applying it."
   - Len Bullard
Jeff P. (Guest)
on 2006-06-01 08:19
Actually both ruby and haskell have effected my C a lot more.  I've been
able to turn several "endless functions" into a short series of actions
done to a list.  Of course each thing that would be a one-liner in Ruby
winds up being a call to a function with a for loop in it, but one must
make due with what one has.

Someday I hope to escape from "C hell" and make a living writing with a
real language.

jp


James B. wrote:
> Jeff P. wrote:
>> James, I really enjoy your quotes.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>> This one especially, having just
>> learned quite a lot about programming via ruby and a friend who insists
>> on explaining Haskel and "functional programming" to me.
>
> Let us know how Haskell influences your Ruby.  Or vice versa.
>
>
>>
>> This "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about
>> programming" quote seems to have a double meaning though.  Every
>> Wednesday, some guys come around with lawnmowers and weedwhackers. I
>> hear them buzzing away and see them sweating through the window of my
>> comfortable office. When I'm programming in C, the language makes me
>> want to stop programming and go join the lawn crew outside...does that
>> count?
>
> I know the feeling!
>
>
> --
> James B.
>
> "A principle or axiom is of no value without the rules for applying it."
>    - Len Bullard
Leslie V. (Guest)
on 2006-06-01 14:38
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/1/06, Jeff P. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Actually both ruby and haskell have effected my C a lot more.  I've been
> able to turn several "endless functions" into a short series of actions
> done to a list.  Of course each thing that would be a one-liner in Ruby
> winds up being a call to a function with a for loop in it, but one must
> make due with what one has.
>
> Someday I hope to escape from "C hell" and make a living writing with a
> real language.

Woohoo! Well, someday maybe.
I at least have C# as well as my C, and am finding myself calling a
few Ruby scripts from C# to do background things. I guess one of the
downsides of opensource projects not caring about "mainstream
acceptance" is that I don't get to program in Ruby at work much.
I'd need RAD on Windows at work, and so the only thing I think of at
the moment is to wait for the windows version of QtRuby to arrive.

Or until we all switch to Linux... (sure thing!)
John G. (Guest)
on 2006-06-01 21:28
(Received via mailing list)
On 6/1/06, Leslie V. <removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> acceptance" is that I don't get to program in Ruby at work much.
Actually, in general, "open source" projects (like, say, Apache) -- or
rather, their primary contributors -- *do* indeed tend to care very
much about mainstream acceptance. "Free software" project contributors
OTOH tend to care more about their software remaining free, with
popularity or acceptance being mostly a nice side-effect.

The current Ruby license seems to straddle both sides: the GPL is
pretty much the standard free software license, but the rest of the
Ruby license looks a bit incomplete or vague in some areas, to me
anyway.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.