On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:33 PM, Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> wrot=
e:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Luis Lavena <redmine / ruby-lang.org> wro=
te:
>> Even worse, zlib has been updated and renamed to zlib1, which add anothe=
r question of the version used to build the distribution.
>>
>> I believe one of the reasons is license distribution, but I could be wro=
ng.
>
> zlib1.dll is the correct name for the DLL, according to what I recall
> of the zlib pages. However, that's intended for a "system" compile
> (e.g., made with msvc6 compatibility only); if a win32 distro is made
> that need to ship a zlib DLL, it needs to have a different name (e.g.,
> ruby-zlib.dll) so that there's no chance of Ruby conflicting with the
> "system" zlib DLL.
>

Thank you Austin for the info.

However, is not that the lib is named zlib1 or could be ruby-zlib, the
problem is the lack of the binary in the "binary" distribution.

--=20
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup=E9ry