Asp Forum - Ruby One-click Installer and ruby 18.4.

Dany Cayouette

1/3/2006 11:14:00 PM

Greetings,
There was not release of the Ruby One-click Installer with version
1.8.3. Anyone heard of plans of One-click Installer plan to include
1.8.4 and any target release timeframe?

Thanks,
Dany

16 Answers

Austin Ziegler

1/3/2006 11:36:00 PM

On 03/01/06, Dany Cayouette <danyc@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
> There was not release of the Ruby One-click Installer with version
> 1.8.3. Anyone heard of plans of One-click Installer plan to include
> 1.8.4 and any target release timeframe?

Yes. Search for it. This is the fifth time that this has been asked.
The answer has not changed.

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

Stephen Waits

1/4/2006 12:26:00 AM

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 03/01/06, Dany Cayouette <danyc@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1.8.3. Anyone heard of plans of One-click Installer plan to include
>> 1.8.4 and any target release timeframe?
>
> Yes. Search for it. This is the fifth time that this has been asked.
> The answer has not changed.

Wow. This is how I imagine comp.lang.lisp acts. Just in my imagination
though.

Dany, the most recent thread was entitled "why there's no ruby 1.8.4 for
win-one-click-installer?". In that thread, Curt Hibbs, who maintains
the OCI, mentioned that the installer is a bunch of work (rebuilding all
extensions, testing, etc.), is not an intrinsic part of Ruby, and that
it will take him some time to get caught up (he has a day job too).
Several suggestions were passed back to Curt on how he might reduce that
time (reducing complexity / removing extensions, automation of
build-test-packaging, or even convincing a 3rd party, like ActiveState,
to get involved). Furthermore, Matz replied that there is always
"ActiveScriptRuby" at http://arton.hp.infoseek.co.jp/....

In the end though, if you want the 1.8.4 OCI, you'll have to be patient.

--Steve

Robert H

1/4/2006 12:49:00 AM

If someone doesn't bother to search the list first, a short answer is
fine.

Robert

Curt Hibbs

1/4/2006 1:20:00 AM

I'm working in it. It should be sometime this month, but I can't say
exactly when.

Thanks for your patience,
Curt

On 1/3/06, Stephen Waits <steve@waits.net> wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > On 03/01/06, Dany Cayouette <danyc@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 1.8.3. Anyone heard of plans of One-click Installer plan to include
> >> 1.8.4 and any target release timeframe?
> >
> > Yes. Search for it. This is the fifth time that this has been asked.
> > The answer has not changed.
>
> Wow. This is how I imagine comp.lang.lisp acts. Just in my imagination
> though.
>
> Dany, the most recent thread was entitled "why there's no ruby 1.8.4 for
> win-one-click-installer?". In that thread, Curt Hibbs, who maintains
> the OCI, mentioned that the installer is a bunch of work (rebuilding all
> extensions, testing, etc.), is not an intrinsic part of Ruby, and that
> it will take him some time to get caught up (he has a day job too).
> Several suggestions were passed back to Curt on how he might reduce that
> time (reducing complexity / removing extensions, automation of
> build-test-packaging, or even convincing a 3rd party, like ActiveState,
> to get involved). Furthermore, Matz replied that there is always
> "ActiveScriptRuby" at http://arton.hp.infoseek.co.jp/....
>
> In the end though, if you want the 1.8.4 OCI, you'll have to be patient.
>
> --Steve
>
>
>

Austin Ziegler

1/4/2006 1:23:00 AM

On 03/01/06, Stephen Waits <steve@waits.net> wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > On 03/01/06, Dany Cayouette <danyc@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 1.8.3. Anyone heard of plans of One-click Installer plan to include
> >> 1.8.4 and any target release timeframe?
> > Yes. Search for it. This is the fifth time that this has been asked.
> > The answer has not changed.
> Wow. This is how I imagine comp.lang.lisp acts. Just in my imagination
> though.

This is, as I said, the fifth time in less than TWO WEEKS. I'm not
Curt, but I'd be pretty sick of hearing the question by now. I've been
working in parallel with Curt (not in contact with, but he is aware of
what I'm doing) to make it so that everything can be built with the
Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition. I've got nearly everything working
with the base compile, and now I'm working on making sure that certain
features work the way that they're supposed to given that Visual C++
2005 has changed its compile mechanism (and making changes to the way
that zlib is included, since zlib.org has some guidelines on shipping
when compiled with anything other than MS VC++ 6).

It almost ALWAYS takes a minimum of two weeks to get the one-click
installer's first release candidate, because there's a *lot* there.

Frankly, I was too short with Dany. But "ruby 1.8.4 one click
installer" returns this as its first item:

http://www.ruby-forum.com/t...

It's not hard to find, and I think that it's polite of the asker to
have at least done a little google searching first. (To compare: I
have been trying to get OpenSSL compiled properly with VC++ 2005 since
26 December. I downloaded the latest snapshot for several days to see
if a particular problem was fixed. I also worked with the OpenSSL CVS
repository to review the changes from the OpenSSL 0.9.8 release. It
wasn't until yesterday that I posted a question to openssl-dev to ask
about the problem when I was certain that I had exhausted what I could
do. Last night, I posted a patch to their build process to fix other
problems that I was having. I'm not saying everyone should go to the
lengths that I did, but I am saying that it's generally a good idea to
at least do a little working.)

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

Dany Cayouette

1/4/2006 6:06:00 AM

Sincere apologies to the list, for the noise. Austin's response was
appropriate... I meant to save my message as a draft... not send it.

In my defense, sequence of events was:
I didn't manage to keep up to date with this list in December, so I
started on a 'blank' sheet for the new year. Scan over Tim Sutherland's
weekly news, where I learned that 1.8.4 was out! Got excited and looked
to see if One-Click Installer had 1.8.4 already. This is when I noticed
no one-click installer with 1.8.3 and prompted my question for 1.8.4.
Started to type email during the day and got sidetracked. At the end of
the day, while closing apps, I meant to save my message as a draft but
hit the send button instead (duh!).

Wanted to give an explaination so I don't get ignored in future postings :-(
I usually do my research... my brain is still on vacation mode...

Austin, sorry to use up your time.. certainly no offense taken by your
answer

Curt, thanks for the One-Click installer!!

Steve, thanks for the nice answer to a silly question..

Again, sorry all for the noise!

Regards,
Dany

Paul

1/19/2006 4:45:00 AM

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 03/01/06, Stephen Waits <steve@waits.net> wrote:
>> Austin Ziegler wrote:
>> > On 03/01/06, Dany Cayouette <danyc@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 1.8.3. Anyone heard of plans of One-click Installer plan to include
>> >> 1.8.4 and any target release timeframe?
>> > Yes. Search for it. This is the fifth time that this has been asked.
>> > The answer has not changed.
>> Wow. This is how I imagine comp.lang.lisp acts. Just in my imagination
>> though.
>
> This is, as I said, the fifth time in less than TWO WEEKS. I'm not
> Curt, but I'd be pretty sick of hearing the question by now. I've been
> working in parallel with Curt (not in contact with, but he is aware of
> what I'm doing) to make it so that everything can be built with the
> Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition. I've got nearly everything working
> with the base compile, and now I'm working on making sure that certain
> features work the way that they're supposed to given that Visual C++
> 2005 has changed its compile mechanism (and making changes to the way
> that zlib is included, since zlib.org has some guidelines on shipping
> when compiled with anything other than MS VC++ 6).
>
> It almost ALWAYS takes a minimum of two weeks to get the one-click
> installer's first release candidate, because there's a *lot* there.
>
> Frankly, I was too short with Dany. But "ruby 1.8.4 one click
> installer" returns this as its first item:
>
> http://www.ruby-...t...
>
> It's not hard to find, and I think that it's polite of the asker to
> have at least done a little google searching first. (To compare: I
> have been trying to get OpenSSL compiled properly with VC++ 2005 since
> 26 December. I downloaded the latest snapshot for several days to see
> if a particular problem was fixed. I also worked with the OpenSSL CVS
> repository to review the changes from the OpenSSL 0.9.8 release. It
> wasn't until yesterday that I posted a question to openssl-dev to ask
> about the problem when I was certain that I had exhausted what I could
> do. Last night, I posted a patch to their build process to fix other
> problems that I was having. I'm not saying everyone should go to the
> lengths that I did, but I am saying that it's generally a good idea to
> at least do a little working.)
>
> -austin

Personally I find your answer arrogant in all possible ways.

If a person comes here for the first time and DOESN'T know to look
elsewhere first, HOW THE HELL WOULD HE KNOW TO LOOK ELSWHERE FIRST!

Noobs need answers, not intellectual brutism!

The Ruby community is supposedly known as 'friendly', well you shot that
all to shit Austin!

I don't care what your excuse is.

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

Austin Ziegler

1/19/2006 3:10:00 PM

On 18/01/06, Paul <graemer@meeker.org> wrote:
> Personally I find your answer arrogant in all possible ways.

You're welcome to do so.

> If a person comes here for the first time and DOESN'T know to look
> elsewhere first, HOW THE HELL WOULD HE KNOW TO LOOK ELSWHERE FIRST!

Um. Google? Google groups if nothing else? If you're looking for a
*new* version of something, wouldn't you use a search engine before
asking people to answer you?

> Noobs need answers, not intellectual brutism!
>
> The Ruby community is supposedly known as 'friendly', well you shot that
> all to shit Austin!
>
> I don't care what your excuse is.

No excuse. I'm just tired of people asking questions for things that
can be discovered very simply. No more, no less. As far as I know,
Curt isn't paid to do work on Ruby. I'm not paid to do work on Ruby.
Any work that I do is because I enjoy doing it. If I get annoyed
because someone is asking the same question that five people before
have asked (and, again, a search would have demonstrably found the
definitive answer), don't be surprised.

But what I have noticed is that the number of people who post via
ruby-forum.com seem to use the search feature less than those of us
who use other means of posting. Or is it just me?

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

jimmybruno

11/9/2010 7:51:00 PM

On Nov 9, 11:51 am, TD <tonydecap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:03 am, Phil <pdema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 6:52 am, Paul <quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> > > familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> > > songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>
> > > Take "All of Me", for example:
>
> > > http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_...
>
> > > No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
> > > noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
> > > But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
> > > you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
> > > you.
>
> > > Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
> > > from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
> > > patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
> > > use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>
> > > I imagine after a while, you see the same changes
> > > over and over again, and you just automatically know
> > > what to do.
>
> > Seems like that's the reason we study 2-5-1 (maj and min) in all keys,
> > secondary dominants and the cycle of fifths, etc. -- so we can
> > negotiate tunes of all shapes and sizes.
>
> > That said, knowing a song might mean knowing the lyrics, or knowing
> > someone else's famous solo, which would allow an improviser a greater
> > palette of expression.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yea, all of that helps, of course, but if we speak of extreme limited
> situations ( where several "training-wheel" elements are no where in
> sight, like no prior knowledge of the melody {might be an original
> tune on a record date or TV show or celebrity involved in a show}, no
> time to build reinforcements and/or scan the tune ahead of time, etc,
> etc) where there is virtually no luxury of criteria, another dimension
> must kick in. And it will, but not for beginners or novices. These
> individuals need a teacher and a thrown into the lion's pit
> experience. Having stated this, I *have* run across name experienced
> players who are weak in the area you mentioned in your initial thread.
> This factor is a tell-tale sign that there is actually more involved
> than 1,000 tune experiences and/or being super theory-minded. A few
> key factors are 1: ear 2: spontaneous bass line, during playing,
> scanning chops. This is of course, only an underlying factor where the
> real deal is concerned: Playing a viable, story-like improvised line
> that serves the tune or the over all harmonic ambiance (whichever is
> most pertinent at the moment) and form. The more cusion-like elements
> that can be available, of course can help trump what I have stated.
> Yea baby...
>
> -TD

Tony, that's called being a pro. Tony you are one of the best at this

jimmybruno

11/9/2010 8:02:00 PM

On Nov 9, 2:50 pm, jimmybruno <ji...@jimmybruno.com> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:51 am, TD <tonydecap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 11:03 am, Phil <pdema...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 6:52 am, Paul <quiller...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Surely even the pros do better with music that they are
> > > > familiar with, but I've heard people improvise very well over
> > > > songs that they may not have been very familiar with.
>
> > > > Take "All of Me", for example:
>
> > > > http://frogstoryrecords.com/analysis/all_...
>
> > > > No doubt I would have come close to these scales by
> > > > noodling around with the changes until they sounded right.
> > > > But the real trick is to know these changes even on a song
> > > > you are unfamiliar with, with only the lead sheet in front of
> > > > you.
>
> > > > Jazz composers clearly steal chord progressions
> > > > from each other, so is it really a matter of memorizing
> > > > patterns like: If you go to a III7 or VI7, you would usually
> > > > use mode 5 of the harmonic minor scale?
>
> > > > I imagine after a while, you see the same changes
> > > > over and over again, and you just automatically know
> > > > what to do.
>
> > > Seems like that's the reason we study 2-5-1 (maj and min) in all keys,
> > > secondary dominants and the cycle of fifths, etc. -- so we can
> > > negotiate tunes of all shapes and sizes.
>
> > > That said, knowing a song might mean knowing the lyrics, or knowing
> > > someone else's famous solo, which would allow an improviser a greater
> > > palette of expression.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yea, all of that helps, of course, but if we speak of extreme limited
> > situations ( where several "training-wheel" elements are no where in
> > sight, like no prior knowledge of the melody {might be an original
> > tune on a record date or TV show or celebrity involved in a show}, no
> > time to build reinforcements and/or scan the tune ahead of time, etc,
> > etc) where there is virtually no luxury of criteria, another dimension
> > must kick in. And it will, but not for beginners or novices. These
> > individuals need a teacher and a thrown into the lion's pit
> > experience. Having stated this, I *have* run across name experienced
> > players who are weak in the area you mentioned in your initial thread.
> > This factor is a tell-tale sign that there is actually more involved
> > than 1,000 tune experiences and/or being super theory-minded. A few
> > key factors are 1: ear 2: spontaneous bass line, during playing,
> > scanning chops. This is of course, only an underlying factor where the
> > real deal is concerned: Playing a viable, story-like improvised line
> > that serves the tune or the over all harmonic ambiance (whichever is
> > most pertinent at the moment) and form. The more cusion-like elements
> > that can be available, of course can help trump what I have stated.
> > Yea baby...
>
> > -TD
>
> Tony, that's called being a pro. Tony you are one of the best at this

Hey Tony, why don't you tell them how when you got 16 bars in a Ann
Margret book that says solo vs another act they says sol etc, etc
etc, There is nothing better than experience ce and there is no room
for discussion when the conductor points at you and you PLAY.

Two different worlds here

comp.lang.ruby

Ruby One-click Installer and ruby 18.4.

Dany Cayouette

Austin Ziegler

Stephen Waits

Robert H

Curt Hibbs

Austin Ziegler

Dany Cayouette

Paul

Austin Ziegler

jimmybruno

jimmybruno

x Login to ForumsZone