On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Mr Eiland <mreiland1978 / yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> mingw is not bundled with either Ruby Windows installer, or the rubygems
> installer, making your entire point moot. =A0In order to build an
> extension
> via ruby gems, you have to:
>
> 1. install ruby
> 2. install ruby gems
> 3. install rubydevkit
> 4. execute a .bat or .ps1 file every single time you want to install or
> update a gem that needs to be compiled.

Step for is unnecessary, as has been pointed out.

> So don't give me this bullshit about MS not allowing you to bundle 3rd
> party software, they don't bundle gcc either.

The Ruby DevKit *does* bundle a full compiler toolchain, not just what
is required to have a compiler run (which would be ruby.h, and that'd
be it, more or less).

The DevKit download, however, cannot, and will not, include Visual C++
Express, since the EULA forbids redistribution by third parties. So,
it's not possible to bundle VS in any way, shape, or form, and thus
the community need for an NMake-compatible toolchain is pretty low.


>
> That's a nice story, but you missed the part where I explicitly stated I
> had moved everything over to the mingw toolchain, so take your strawmen
> and stuff them up your ass.

I refer you to your OP, where you said that Ruby's extconf.rb doesn't
generate NMake compatible makefiles.

Everything else follows from that. Including your outbursts.

> I'm not using Ruby for Windows development because the windows support
> is shit, not because I have to use the mingw toolchain. =A0That's a
> symptom, the problem is the community thinking it's acceptable to
> pretend Windows is Unix. =A0Jackasses and fools on both sides of that
> argument. =A0The jackasses who want to stay in unix land, even in windows=
,
> and the fools who think windows is the only OS out there.

That's why the RubyInstaller project created the DevKit. It makes, for
all intents and purposes, the MinGW tools invisible to the average
Ruby user. They are only noticeable if a gem blows up during
compilation. Which is neither Ruby's nor Windows' fault, nor the fault
of MinGW.

BTW: Notice that Ruby mingw32 lacks any dependency on cygwin.dll. It's
a fully native Ruby binary, not using any sort of compatibility layers
to map *NIX system calls to Windows equivalents.

> Next time, just acknowledge the point and state no one has any interest
> in fixing it instead of launching into the OSS party line.

Fact is: OSS is volunteer driven.
Fact is: OSS is "scratch your own itch" driven.
Fact is: *you* want NMake compatible makefiles.
Fact is: Unless you either do the patch yourself, or offer incentives
for somebody else to provide a patch, you don't get to complain. You
can file a bug, but otherwise you are left to the community's fancy
and what is seen as a necessary feature (First: Get better Windows
compatibility with Ruby).

> =A0You'll stop misinterpreting statements of intention as threats.

Your tone is leaving very little to the imagination.

That you aren't offering anything beyond "Ruby on Windows is shit",
and "OSs party line", among curses, pushes you towards the "troll" end
of things.

Offer some suggestions or, better yet, patches to fix what you
perceive as issues, and we are talking. But unless your bug reports
become more verbose than "Windows support by Ruby is shit", nothing
will be done.

--=20
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.