From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2004-08-23T06:55:42+09:00
Subject: Re: Package requests for the prelim. Ruby Production Archive

Mauricio Fern�ndez wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 02:42:02AM +0900, James Britt wrote:
> 
>>(Here I'm trying to install the packages into c:/ruby-rpa/ and related 
>>subdirectories)
>>
>>c:/ruby/lib/ruby/1.8/fileutils.rb:181:in `mkdir': Invalid argument - 
>>c:/ruby-rpa/c: (Errno::EINVAL)
> 
> 
> Thank you for your report. It helped me find a stupid bug which was triggered
> when one didn't use ruby's own $prefix.

Sweet. Thanks.
> 
> Since the issue affects the bootstrapping phase (i.e. can't be fixed
> with a normal self-upgrade), I have decided to release 0.2.1pre1, available
> at http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=265. Please tell me if it solves
> your problems.
> 
> Please keep in mind the following:
> * when answering to the questions in the bootstrap phase, only the first
>   path is absolute (will default to Ruby's own $prefix, e.g. c:\ruby
>   normally on win32). The others are relative to the former and the
>   default values should be perfectly fine.

Ah.  I thought the default paths, as presented by the installer, were 
complete paths.  So I kept entering complete paths.  The prompts gave no 
indication that my earlier paths would be reused to build the other paths.

> * setting the $prefix to c:\ruby-rpa means that rpa-base itself will be
>   put there; you will have to set PATH to point to c:\ruby-rpa\bin too,
>   and adjust RUBYLIB (something like c:\ruby-rpa\lib\ruby\site_ruby\1.8, 
>   but not 100% sure).
>   As of now, it is probably better to just install into the normal
>   $prefix, since rpa-base provides enough guarantees to make sure it
>   won't end up cluttered with half-installed RPA ports.

Are you *sure*? I've had enough issues with 
installing/uninstalling/reinstalling assorted versions of the 1-click 
package.  I don't want any overlap between this and my main ruby 
installation.


>   Support for per-user installations is planned and might be done in
>   time for 0.3.0.

Nice.

...

> 
>>there may be many other reasons why people prefer not to 
>>use rpa; poor Windows support being a real possibility.
> 
> 
> There are good reasons for using both RubyGems and rpa-base, and you
> can indeed use them both at a time.
> 
> I am sure more bugs will be found in rpa-base's codebase, just as in
> any other piece of sw.; I believe the bases are solid, though (I haven't
> touched the transactional code lately, but last time I did the count was
> at 500000 successful transactions since the last real bug in that area).
> So far I've managed to fix all reported bugs in under 1-2 days (those
> that were reported via IRC were typically fixed within a few hours).
> 
> Now, regarding my original question, is there anything you'd like to
> see packaged? ;-)

I don't know yet.  I need to see how much disk space this takes up as 
is, and see what's installed,  and what I might use.  You've probably 
covered all the things I need.  I have a few alpha/beta projects on 
rubyforge.  They tend have been created to scratch a personal itch, so 
if they're not currently on your list then it's unlikely there is much 
demand for them.

I'll go see if I can get this to play well on my laptop.

Thanks,

James