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


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Installing Ruby 1.9.1 Binary on Windows Vista

Joel Dezenzio

5/27/2009 4:04:00 PM

I've searched and only found one topic which did not have an answer or
explanation on how to install Ruby 1.9.1 Binary on windows.

Is there a "tutorial" or "documentation" on how to correctly install the
binary version on windows?

I find it hard to believe that some type of documentation would not be
available. There is no one-click installer for 1.9.1 so I don't mind
doing it the old fashioned way if I knew how to do so properly.

Thanks.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....
22 Answers

Luis Lavena

5/27/2009 6:35:00 PM

0

On May 27, 1:03 pm, Joel Dezenzio <jdezen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've searched and only found one topic which did not have an answer or
> explanation on how to install Ruby 1.9.1 Binary on windows.
>
> Is there a "tutorial" or "documentation" on how to correctly install the
> binary version on windows?
>
> I find it hard to believe that some type of documentation would not be
> available.  There is no one-click installer for 1.9.1 so I don't mind
> doing it the old fashioned way if I knew how to do so properly.
>

This has been commented and discussed several times in this mailing
list by myself and my other developers.

You can go the mswin32 route which require you actualy READ the
install instructions at garbage collect site:

http://www.garbagecollect.jp/ruby/m...
http://www.garbagecollect.jp/ruby/m...documents/install.html

Or, to stay DRY with my answers:

http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/05/05/rubyinstaller-state-of-...
http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/05/17/rubyinstaller-updated-packages-and-o...
http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/05/19/pure-ruby-readline-rel...

--
Luis Lavena

Joel Dezenzio

5/27/2009 8:39:00 PM

0

Bookmarking those links - many thanks.

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

Roger Pack

5/27/2009 10:38:00 PM

0

> Is there a "tutorial" or "documentation" on how to correctly install the
> binary version on windows?

Here's my crack at a tutorial.
This is to install versions built with mingw (i.e. pre releases for the
one click installer).
http://programming-gone-awry.blogspot.com/2009/05/ruby-19-one-click-inst...
Cheers!
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

trehook@googlemail.com

5/28/2009 12:17:00 PM

0

Here's my crack at a tutorial.
This is to install versions built with mingw (i.e. pre releases for
the
one click installer).
http://programming-gone-awry.blogspot.com/2009/05/ruby-19-one-click-inst...
Cheers!

Hope it helps. For more information http://groups.google.com/group/t...

Regards,
Trevor.

On May 27, 9:03 am, Joel Dezenzio <jdezen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've searched and only found one topic which did not have an answer or
> explanation on how to install Ruby 1.9.1 Binary onwindows.
>
> Is there a "tutorial" or "documentation" on how to correctly install the
> binary version onwindows?
>
> I find it hard to believe that some type of documentation would not be
> available.  There is no one-click installer for 1.9.1 so I don't mind
> doing it the old fashioned way if I knew how to do so properly.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Posted viahttp://www.ruby-....

Joel Dezenzio

5/28/2009 12:49:00 PM

0

Roger Pack wrote:
>> Is there a "tutorial" or "documentation" on how to correctly install the
>> binary version on windows?
>
> Here's my crack at a tutorial.
> This is to install versions built with mingw (i.e. pre releases for the
> one click installer).
> http://programming-gone-awry.blogspot.com/2009/05/ruby-19-one-click-inst...
> Cheers!
> -=r

Thanks Roger,

Can I ask one question though. If I have previously used the installer,
do I need to "uninstall" that version completely before installing the
ming/1.9 version?

I didn't see that in your link instructions so just wanted to confirm
before going forward with the test.

Thanks.

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

Joel Dezenzio

5/28/2009 12:59:00 PM

0

Actually I just did..

1. renamed Ruby to Ruby.old
2. Followed all the remaining instructions (with exception of the path
variables for ruby itself)
3. Ran ruby -v and gcc -v and both worked fine.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Joel Dezenzio

5/28/2009 1:06:00 PM

0

4. Copied Scite into the new Ruby folder.
5. Ran gem installs and everything is working fine thus far.
6. Tested a few programs...

So, I believe that if you have the one-click installer already installed
(the path variables are already set).

If you follow all the instructions located in the link and then do what
I listed it does work fine.

If there are any potential flaws with this, please let me know but so
far everything is working...

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

Joel Dezenzio

5/28/2009 1:17:00 PM

0

One thing I definitely noticed like when I tried to install mysql I had
to do:

gem install mysql --platform=mswin32

and it worked fine..

With other files like ruby-opengl I had to go to the download page,
download the .gem file manually and install the gem locally and it
worked fine.

Testing apps and they all work fine.

Good information - this is exactly what I was looking for!
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Roger Pack

5/28/2009 1:54:00 PM

0


> Thanks Roger,
>
> Can I ask one question though. If I have previously used the installer,
> do I need to "uninstall" that version completely before installing the
> ming/1.9 version?

Nope--you can have as many as you want on you system, just be aware that
"ruby gem installed commands" will use the first ruby they find in the
path, not necessarily the one they were installed with. So it's ok to
have multiple versions just realize that it will by default use the
first one in the path.
-=r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

Joel Dezenzio

5/28/2009 2:30:00 PM

0

The only issue I'm finding with upgrading is that some of the gem
binaries are built on another version so I get an error
msvcrt-ruby18.dll was not found. I know it's occurring because I have
msvcrt-ruby191.dll now and the gem was built with 18 instead of 191.

That's the only downfall so far.

What I don't understand is why don't the gem authors force a certain
"require ruby version" when installing their gems so that we know which
ones are 18 and which ones are 191...

Having to fish for which gems are which and then having to go to the
authors to find a new source is a bit frustrating.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....