On 10/25/06, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb / cesmail.net> wrote:
> Austin Ziegler wrote:
> > I have little nice to say about Cygwin when people bring it up as a
> > solution, because it IS *NOT* a "solution" on Windows. It's a hack; a
> > workaround. It's good to use when you absolutely must use Unix
> > software that the developers have been too damned lazy to actually
> > *port* the software to Windows.
> Amen! But ... it's a boatload less expensive than Reflection X. :)

If all you're after is X, try Xming. Once I found that, I fully
removed Cygwin from my work system. I didn't need the rest of the
crap.

> > If Matz, as usual, has a 1.8.6 release for Christmas (Matz?) I will be
> > recommending Curt use MinGW to compile Ruby for Windows.
> As opposed to a cross-compile with GCC 4.1.1 on a Linux system? Just out
> of curiosity, how is the Ruby on a MacOS machine compiled? Then again,
> if we are helping Microsoft get VC8 "Ruby Ready", should we be helping
> MinGW too?

We're not really helping them, yet. We're telling them what we need
and cannot ourselves provide. We have other problems to deal with (a
lack of a distutils-like software). IIRC, MinGW doesn't include GCC
4.1.1 at all, yet, even for cross-compiles. You're stuck with GCC 3.4.

Because I'm considering how much time it would take to get what we
*need*, I am going to target Ruby 1.9 for a VC8 release.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
               * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
               * austin / zieglers.ca