# Mac OS X 10.5.4 - no new Ruby? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [July 2, 2008, 12:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951 "2008-07-02T00:11:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt_neuburg)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 12:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951/1 "2008-07-02T00:11:59Z")
The Mac OS X 10.5.4 update came out yesterday, but it did not update the installed Ruby to 1.8.7. I thought the idea that this sort of thing would happen was part of the promise of keeping Ruby in a system library framework…? m. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt_neuburg)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 12:33am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951/2 "2008-07-02T00:33:02Z")
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:08 PM, matt neuburg [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > The Mac OS X 10.5.4 update came out yesterday, but it did not update the > installed Ruby to 1.8.7. I thought the idea that this sort of thing > would happen was part of the promise of keeping Ruby in a system library > framework…? I think that Ruby 1.8.7 breaks so many things (including all versions of Rails prior to Rails 2.1) that it’s probably for the best that Apple stuck with Ruby 1.8.6. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt_neuburg)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 2:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951/3 "2008-07-02T02:26:24Z")
Lyle J. wrote: > I think that Ruby 1.8.7 breaks so many things (including all versions > of Rails prior to Rails 2.1) that it’s probably for the best that > Apple stuck with Ruby 1.8.6. Well, it would be nice to know that they at least patched the security hole. ([http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/06/20/apple.tech.finds.ruby.hole/](http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/06/20/apple.tech.finds.ruby.hole/)) You really can’t expect the average user to do this themselves… vince ---
**Author:** ![matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt_neuburg)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 2:46am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951/4 "2008-07-02T02:46:25Z")
Lyle J. wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 5:08 PM, matt neuburg [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > The Mac OS X 10.5.4 update came out yesterday, but it did not update the > > installed Ruby to 1.8.7. I thought the idea that this sort of thing > > would happen was part of the promise of keeping Ruby in a system library > > framework…? > > I think that Ruby 1.8.7 breaks so many things (including all versions > of Rails prior to Rails 2.1) that it’s probably for the best that > Apple stuck with Ruby 1.8.6. well I hope they fixed the nasty bugs found by an apple employee 🙂 another thing that might hold apple back from updating ruby is that there’s no dtrace patch for 1.8.7 yet… just my 0,02 cents ---
**Author:** ![matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt_neuburg)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 5:40am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951/5 "2008-07-02T05:40:08Z")
On Jul 1, 7:23 pm, Vince A. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Well, it would be nice to know that they at least patched the security > hole. > ([http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/06/20/apple.tech.finds.ruby.hole/](http://www.macnn.com/articles/08/06/20/apple.tech.finds.ruby.hole/)) > You really can’t expect the average user to do this themselves… The update is covered at [Apple security updates - Apple Support](http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222) and [http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2163](http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2163). The first mentions security update 2008-004, which is the second. You can see a couple of mentions of Ruby in the list. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt_neuburg)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2008, 10:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951/6 "2008-07-02T10:14:04Z")
As other said, 1.8.7 has still some incompatibilities, which is the main reason why we didn’t upgrade to it. As for the Ruby changes in 10.5.4, check out [http://ruby.macosforge.org/post/47/](http://ruby.macosforge.org/post/47/) Laurent ---
**Author:** ![matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt_neuburg)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2008, 5:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951/7 "2008-07-03T05:25:47Z")
Laurent S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > As other said, 1.8.7 has still some incompatibilities, which is the > main reason why we didn’t upgrade to it. > > As for the Ruby changes in 10.5.4, > check out [http://ruby.macosforge.org/post/47/](http://ruby.macosforge.org/post/47/) Thanks, I’ll try. The site seems to be down right now. That there were changes in REXML is evident… m. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@matt\_neuburg](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/matt_neuburg)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2008, 8:50pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mac-os-x-10-5-4-no-new-ruby/141951/8 "2008-07-03T20:50:45Z")
matt neuburg a écrit : > The Mac OS X 10.5.4 update came out yesterday, but it did not update the > installed Ruby to 1.8.7. I thought the idea that this sort of thing > would happen was part of the promise of keeping Ruby in a system library > framework…? m. You may wish to try MacRuby, it is a MacPort of 1.9, in ObjectiveC, meaning that Ruby objects are native ObjC object, making the interoperability as smooth as possible and letting you write Cocoa application much easier. J-P