Re: One-Click Ruby Installer for Windows 1.8.5-21 released

Speaking of which, I just installed Visual C++ Express on the gizmo
extensions,
etc. Are there some known not to work with VC++ Express?

The compiler situation on windows is currently an
incompatible mess. We’re persuing possible solutions (Austin
Ziegler is spearheading part of this with Microsoft). But
currently the only gauranteed safe way to compile extensions
is to use VC++ 6.

Curt

What about doing something along the lines of Strawberry Perl, i.e.
bundle a compiler with the distro?

http://win32.perl.org/wiki/index.php?title=Strawberry_Perl

Regards,

Dan

PS - Maybe now would be a good time to finish up that Win32API article
I’ve been working on. :slight_smile:

This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential
or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is
strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments.

On 8/30/06, Berger, Daniel [email protected] wrote:

Speaking of which, I just installed Visual C++ Express on the gizmo
extensions,
What about doing something along the lines of Strawberry Perl, i.e.
bundle a compiler with the distro?

http://win32.perl.org/wiki/index.php?title=Strawberry_Perl

Regards,

Dan

Do you think you are allowed to distribute MS compiler (and the other
tools needed)? (cause I don’t think so).

./alex

.w( the_mindstorm )p.

On 8/30/06, Berger, Daniel [email protected] wrote:

What about doing something along the lines of Strawberry Perl, i.e.
bundle a compiler with the distro?

http://win32.perl.org/wiki/index.php?title=Strawberry_Perl

Regards,

Dan

That’s a very interesting idea. It would really provide a standard
environment for building ruby extensions.

Curt

On 8/30/06, John L. [email protected] wrote:

I just sent out a mail to some friends at MSFT to see if this is even
remotely possible. VC 6 is a really old product, but I could imagine
the approvals that would be necessary to make something like this
happen.

I wouldn’t hold my breath, but you never know … :slight_smile:

Hmmm… you are an optimistic person :-]. Is there a list of the
needed utilities that should be distributed? (I mean cl.exe, nmake,
etc).

./alex

:Architect of InfoQ.com:
.w( the_mindstorm )p.

I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to come up with a list if we get the
go-ahead.

This is something that various folks at MSFT have fought for over the
years - getting a compiler into the core Windows distribution. That’s
finally going to happen with Vista since .NET FX 3.0 ships as an
install-by-default optional component (check box is on by default but
no dependencies on .NET FX 3.0 by the core OS). C# and VB.NET will be
there, but I don’t know if VC++ will be there.

-John
http://www.iunknown.com

I just sent out a mail to some friends at MSFT to see if this is even
remotely possible. VC 6 is a really old product, but I could imagine
the approvals that would be necessary to make something like this
happen.

I wouldn’t hold my breath, but you never know … :slight_smile:

-John
http://www.iunknown.com

I wouldn’t even have thought it to be possible, but it can’t hurt to
ask.

Curt

On 8/30/06, Alexandru P. [email protected]
wrote:

Do you think you are allowed to distribute MS compiler (and the other
tools needed)? (cause I don’t think so).

No, you can’t redistribute MS tools. This would only be a possibility
is we go the MinGW route.

Curt

On 8/30/06, Curt H. [email protected] wrote:

Dan

I remember I’ve started a long discussion about this in the past, but
I don’t know the conclusion of MinGW vs VC. Would it be possible and
how complex would be to currently move the One-Click installer from VC
to MinGW?

./alex

On 8/31/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:

On 8/30/06, Alexandru P. [email protected] wrote:

I remember I’ve started a long discussion about this in the past, but
I don’t know the conclusion of MinGW vs VC. Would it be possible and
how complex would be to currently move the One-Click installer from VC
to MinGW?

Do you want to have a 64-bit Ruby on Windows eventually?

I don’t have such machine so for the moment my answer would be no. But
considering the spread of Ruby, this version would be quite normal to
exist at some point.

If the answer is yes, MinGW is completely stalled on this matter. The
only answer there is VC8.

Austin do you know if MinGW is at least planning to support this or is
it a dead-end?

./alex

.w( the_mindstorm )p.

On 8/30/06, Alexandru P. [email protected]
wrote:

I remember I’ve started a long discussion about this in the past, but
I don’t know the conclusion of MinGW vs VC. Would it be possible and
how complex would be to currently move the One-Click installer from VC
to MinGW?

Do you want to have a 64-bit Ruby on Windows eventually?

If the answer is yes, MinGW is completely stalled on this matter. The
only answer there is VC8.

-austin

On 8/30/06, Alexandru P. [email protected]
wrote:

Austin do you know if MinGW is at least planning to support this or is
it a dead-end?

Not a clue. I don’t actually use MinGW; I considered the whole project
a dead-end some time ago when they couldn’t get their act together on
how best to install. They may have improved since then, but I know
specifically that they are having problems with x86-64 support (and
finding people to work with it).

There are going to be other good reasons to switch to a later version
of the MS compiler which is free (as in beer).

-austin

On 8/31/06, mortench [email protected] wrote:

Ruby should go for 64bit as well as soon as possible. I would prefer
Ruby on Windows to be compiled with VC8 for interoperability with .NET
and other Windows C++ libraries (sort of the whole point of a Windows
version) -, but if MinGW does not support 64 bit than I can’t see any
other choice than VC8 anyway.

/ Morten

I agree with this, but I wonder if there is somebody that has
succesfully compiler Ruby with VC8. I rember somebody has started this
process (Austin is it you?), but never heard of the final result.

./alex

.w( the_mindstorm )p.

Austin Z. skrev:

Do you want to have a 64-bit Ruby on Windows eventually?
If the answer is yes, MinGW is completely stalled on this matter. The
only answer there is VC8.

The world is clearly moving rapidly towards 64 bit architectures. AMD
x86 chips has been 64 bits for years now, and even Intel got their acts
together with Core Duo 2 recently. Also the upcomming Microsoft Vista
will only have complete functionality on 64 bit and various other
software like Exchange will NOT work at all on 32bit machines.

Ruby should go for 64bit as well as soon as possible. I would prefer
Ruby on Windows to be compiled with VC8 for interoperability with .NET
and other Windows C++ libraries (sort of the whole point of a Windows
version) -, but if MinGW does not support 64 bit than I can’t see any
other choice than VC8 anyway.

/ Morten

On 8/30/06, Alexandru P. [email protected]
wrote:

I agree with this, but I wonder if there is somebody that has
succesfully compiler Ruby with VC8. I rember somebody has started this
process (Austin is it you?), but never heard of the final result.

I had actually started and I did get a running Ruby. But I had to do a
lot of extra stuff toward getting a working One-Click Installer
approach.

I have recently had time to install the appropriate development tools
on my laptop (my old Windows laptop, not a virtual environment in my
Mac, which I will be doing later), so I hope to pick this up again to
help with the effort we were talking with Microsoft about.

-austin

Curt H. wrote:

That’s a very interesting idea. It would really provide a standard
environment for building ruby extensions.

Curt

Can gcc 4.1.1 and supporting goodies run on Windows? From what I hear,
it’s the compiler of choice for 64-bit systems.Gentoo 2006.1 just came
out today and they’re on 4.1.1 now. I’m in the process of migrating to
4.1.1 even as we speak on my Gentoo boxes.

Hi,

At Thu, 31 Aug 2006 06:22:13 +0900,
Austin Z. wrote in [ruby-talk:211614]:

Do you want to have a 64-bit Ruby on Windows eventually?

If the answer is yes, MinGW is completely stalled on this matter. The
only answer there is VC8.

64-bit ruby is binary incompatible with 32-bit ruby.
So it isn’t concerned with 32-bit One-Click Installer.

On 8/31/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:

Dan
4.1.1 even as we speak on my Gentoo boxes.

I think there are/there have been attempts to do this (cygwin,
unixtools) but I wouldn’t walk this way.

./alex

.w( the_mindstorm )p.

On 8/30/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky [email protected] wrote:

Can gcc 4.1.1 and supporting goodies run on Windows? From what I hear,
it’s the compiler of choice for 64-bit systems.Gentoo 2006.1 just came
out today and they’re on 4.1.1 now. I’m in the process of migrating to
4.1.1 even as we speak on my Gentoo boxes.

Sure they will. But the tools have to be ported to the mingw
environment, which is not entirely Unix-like.

-austin

On 8/31/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:

On 8/30/06, Alexandru P. [email protected] wrote:

I agree with this, but I wonder if there is somebody that has
succesfully compiler Ruby with VC8. I rember somebody has started this
process (Austin is it you?), but never heard of the final result.

I had actually started and I did get a running Ruby. But I had to do a
lot of extra stuff toward getting a working One-Click Installer
approach.

That’s good to know, at least the result was not negative.

I have recently had time to install the appropriate development tools
on my laptop (my old Windows laptop, not a virtual environment in my
Mac, which I will be doing later), so I hope to pick this up again to
help with the effort we were talking with Microsoft about.

Please do so :-], till MS guys will not change their minds.

I am a little puzzled by Nobu’s comment:

What does this mean?

./alex

.w( the_mindstorm )p.