[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

iconv replacement for windows?

Thomas Leitner

12/10/2004 3:16:00 PM

Hi,

I'm using the iconv library form the Ruby Standard Library under Linux
and it works quite well, but the iconv library is not available under
Windows (using the One-Click-Installer). Is there anything equivalent to
iconv in Ruby for Windows?

Thx,
Thomas
17 Answers

Austin Ziegler

12/10/2004 3:45:00 PM

0

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:17:30 +0900, Thomas Leitner <t_leitner@gmx.at> wrote:
> I'm using the iconv library form the Ruby Standard Library under Linux
> and it works quite well, but the iconv library is not available under
> Windows (using the One-Click-Installer). Is there anything equivalent to
> iconv in Ruby for Windows?

My recommendation is to request that iconv be included with the
One-Click-Installer.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

Thomas Leitner

12/10/2004 4:12:00 PM

0

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:45:11 +0900
Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

| On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:17:30 +0900, Thomas Leitner <t_leitner@gmx.at>
| wrote:
| > I'm using the iconv library form the Ruby Standard Library under
| > Linux and it works quite well, but the iconv library is not
| > available under Windows (using the One-Click-Installer). Is there
| > anything equivalent to iconv in Ruby for Windows?
|
| My recommendation is to request that iconv be included with the
| One-Click-Installer.
|

I have looked at the feature request page of the One-Click-Installer
project and there is already a feature request for iconv. Thanks for
pointing me to that!

Thomas

--
|\ Thomas Leitner -- thomas [underscore] leitner [at] gmx [dot] at
|>
|/ "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans"

Curt Hibbs

12/10/2004 7:24:00 PM

0

Thomas Leitner wrote:
>
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:45:11 +0900
> Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> | On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:17:30 +0900, Thomas Leitner <t_leitner@gmx.at>
> | wrote:
> | > I'm using the iconv library form the Ruby Standard Library under
> | > Linux and it works quite well, but the iconv library is not
> | > available under Windows (using the One-Click-Installer). Is there
> | > anything equivalent to iconv in Ruby for Windows?
> |
> | My recommendation is to request that iconv be included with the
> | One-Click-Installer.
> |
>
> I have looked at the feature request page of the One-Click-Installer
> project and there is already a feature request for iconv. Thanks for
> pointing me to that!

If someone would be willing to package iconv as a RubyGem, them it would
become immediately available thru a simple "gem install iconv", since
RubyGems is now included in the one-click installer.

Curt

gabriele renzi

12/10/2004 7:55:00 PM

0

Curt Hibbs ha scritto:

>
> If someone would be willing to package iconv as a RubyGem, them it would
> become immediately available thru a simple "gem install iconv", since
> RubyGems is now included in the one-click installer.
>
> Curt

yes, but iconv is one of the things that is part of the standard ruby
(it is a c bingind in /ext) so it would be nice to see it provided with
the standard 1-click-installer (maybe with the proper iconv utility)

Austin Ziegler

12/10/2004 8:23:00 PM

0

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 04:57:24 +0900, gabriele renzi
<rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
> Curt Hibbs ha scritto:
> > If someone would be willing to package iconv as a RubyGem, them it would
> > become immediately available thru a simple "gem install iconv", since
> > RubyGems is now included in the one-click installer.
> yes, but iconv is one of the things that is part of the standard ruby
> (it is a c bingind in /ext) so it would be nice to see it provided with
> the standard 1-click-installer (maybe with the proper iconv utility)

Right. If it's provided with standard Ruby (e.g., OpenSSL, iconv, a
few other things), then the 1-click installer should include them.

I personally don't like the idea of forcing users to use RubyGems for
a lot of things that are currently in the installer.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

Curt Hibbs

12/10/2004 8:30:00 PM

0

gabriele renzi wrote:
>
> Curt Hibbs ha scritto:
>
> >
> > If someone would be willing to package iconv as a RubyGem, them it would
> > become immediately available thru a simple "gem install iconv", since
> > RubyGems is now included in the one-click installer.
> >
> > Curt
>
> yes, but iconv is one of the things that is part of the standard ruby
> (it is a c bingind in /ext) so it would be nice to see it provided with
> the standard 1-click-installer (maybe with the proper iconv utility)

<embarrassed> That'll teach me to dash off a quick reply before heading out
to a meeting! :-(

My intention was to use this as an encouragement to use RubyGems, but I sure
did pick the wrong thing!

Curt

Stu

12/11/2004 8:11:00 PM

0

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:22:38 +0900, Austin Ziegler
<halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 04:57:24 +0900, gabriele renzi
><rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
>> Curt Hibbs ha scritto:
>> > If someone would be willing to package iconv as a RubyGem, them it would
>> > become immediately available thru a simple "gem install iconv", since
>> > RubyGems is now included in the one-click installer.
>> yes, but iconv is one of the things that is part of the standard ruby
>> (it is a c bingind in /ext) so it would be nice to see it provided with
>> the standard 1-click-installer (maybe with the proper iconv utility)
>
>Right. If it's provided with standard Ruby (e.g., OpenSSL, iconv, a
>few other things), then the 1-click installer should include them.
>
>I personally don't like the idea of forcing users to use RubyGems for
>a lot of things that are currently in the installer.
>

personally im kinda sick of all the duplication.

i have iconv with my win32 GTK install (gaim),
i have iconv with my apache2 install
i have iconv with my php install
i have iconv with cygwin
i have iconv with DevCPP
i have iconv with subversion
i also have some inconv dlls in my windows\system32 which I dont
know what app owns.

i dont mind having the world + kitchen sink in the 1click installer
as long as I can checkbox it out and not break anything if I have
iconv installed by something else already.

where is the line? if we add openssl are we going to add mysql just
for kicks? or postgresql? how about a c compiler since some extensions
require compilation??



-- Stu --
[FAQ] Write Your Own Operating System
http://www.mega-tokyo....

Austin Ziegler

12/11/2004 9:40:00 PM

0

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 05:12:34 +0900, Stu <ceaser@rome.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 05:22:38 +0900, Austin Ziegler
> <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 04:57:24 +0900, gabriele renzi
>> <rff_rff@remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
>>> Curt Hibbs ha scritto:
>>>> If someone would be willing to package iconv as a RubyGem, them
>>>> it would become immediately available thru a simple "gem
>>>> install iconv", since RubyGems is now included in the one-click
>>>> installer.
>>> yes, but iconv is one of the things that is part of the standard
>>> ruby (it is a c bingind in /ext) so it would be nice to see it
>>> provided with the standard 1-click-installer (maybe with the
>>> proper iconv utility)
>> Right. If it's provided with standard Ruby (e.g., OpenSSL, iconv,
>> a few other things), then the 1-click installer should include
>> them.
>>
>> I personally don't like the idea of forcing users to use RubyGems
>> for a lot of things that are currently in the installer.
> personally im kinda sick of all the duplication.

For extra/external libraries, I can agree with you. Thus, iconv.dll
should only be installed when it is selected (which it should be, by
default). However, iconv.so -- the Ruby interface to iconv -- must
be installed regardless. Maybe the installer can check to see if it
can load iconv.dll from the PATH before it selects the iconv.dll
installation by default.

MySQL and PostgresQL (the databases, not the bindings) would not be
included because they are clearly separate libraries that a user
must want to use. Iconv and OpenSSL are *assumed* by Ruby to be part
of a working operating system.

At a minimum, the Ruby bindings must be included. If there are
redistributables (e.g., openssl.dll, iconv.dll) that would be
beneficial, they should be included but made optional for
installation.

The point is to have a complete installer for people who would run
our applications, not just programmers. If not, then we tell people
on Windows to download and install fifteen things *before they can
even RUN Ruby*.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca

Carlos

12/11/2004 10:05:00 PM

0

[Stu <ceaser@rome.net>, 2004-12-11 21.12 CET]
> personally im kinda sick of all the duplication.
>
> i have iconv with my win32 GTK install (gaim),
> i have iconv with my apache2 install
> i have iconv with my php install
> i have iconv with cygwin
> i have iconv with DevCPP
> i have iconv with subversion
> i also have some inconv dlls in my windows\system32 which I dont
> know what app owns.

Hopefully you'll be able to configure all of these to use ruby's iconv and
stop the duplication.

> i dont mind having the world + kitchen sink in the 1click installer
> as long as I can checkbox it out and not break anything if I have
> iconv installed by something else already.

That's a good idea.

> where is the line? if we add openssl are we going to add mysql just
> for kicks? or postgresql? how about a c compiler since some extensions
> require compilation??

The extensions in ruby's ext directory. And they should come precompiled.

Stu

12/11/2004 11:22:00 PM

0

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 06:40:20 +0900, Austin Ziegler
<halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

>At a minimum, the Ruby bindings must be included. If there are
>redistributables (e.g., openssl.dll, iconv.dll) that would be
>beneficial, they should be included but made optional for
>installation.
>
>The point is to have a complete installer for people who would run
>our applications, not just programmers. If not, then we tell people
>on Windows to download and install fifteen things *before they can
>even RUN Ruby*.
>

like i said, I have nothing against loading the installer with
everything under the sun, its a great way to distribute a base
install etc.

and id love to see more binary extensions come with the installer,
for things that are a PITA to build oneself (ala mod_ruby, db drivers,
ncurses, etc).

its easy to say XYZ is in rubygems, and it would be quite easy
for a non-programmer to gem install XYZ.. but do we expect
non-programmers to have compilers installed if they try to
gem install ncurses??

the other side of the coin is a base ruby install with nothing else
and some secondary install packs, say ruby-database-1click-installer
or ruby-widgets-1click for gtk/wx/fox/etc, mm im going off on tangents
now...


-- Stu --
[FAQ] Write Your Own Operating System
http://www.mega-tokyo....