[#3006] CVS repository — "Eugene Scripnik" <hoaz@...>

Hello.

21 messages 2004/06/16
[#3008] Re: CVS repository — ts <decoux@...> 2004/06/16

>>>>> "E" == Eugene Scripnik <hoaz@gala.net> writes:

[#3009] Re: CVS repository — Michal Rokos <michal@...> 2004/06/16

Hi!

[#3057] Ruby 1.8.2 to be released. — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)

Hi,

20 messages 2004/06/23

Re: Ruby 1.8.2 to be released.

From: Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@...>
Date: 2004-06-23 16:52:44 UTC
List: ruby-core #3060
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I'd like to release the next stable version 1.8.2 in the near future.

Thank you.

> Does anybody have anything to say about the following:[...]
>
>  * things to be done.

I have a poorly formed question, by which I mean there might not be
an answer, as such.  I have had problems trying to build ruby-1.8.1
on Suns with GCC-2.95.3, but have had more success with GCC-3.x.
However, since I have had to update the binutils to get 3.x on the
system, and since I did get it to build on a DEC OSF 5 system with
2.95.3 and newish binutils (2.13.x I think) I'm not sure of the
exact cause of the failures.  The "fix" was to Get New Utilities, so
then it didn't matter.

So, my poorly formed question is this:
Are there minimum versions for GCC and/or binutils that we should be
using for building Ruby, and is this documented anywhere?

I've not noticed it documented anywhere, but that could well be my
fault! (not looking in the right places, etc) :-)  If it is not
documented, should it be?  Would you like to to run some tests to
see where the boundaries lie?  The modern GCC build process is
pretty scriptable, and Ruby building is easy, so this is likely to
be feasible.

>
> 							matz.


         Hugh

In This Thread