From: Dominic Sisneros Date: 2006-07-25T05:53:06+09:00 Subject: Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? ------=_Part_214678_2488136.1153774381490 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I also think that fixing the toolchain might help out more in the long run then changing the compiler. Most of the problems mentioned seems to be that Windows doesn't have the ./configure, make, make install tool chain. Would it make sense to port the autotool tasks to ruby and get rid of that requirement. If mkmf would be changed to generate a rakefile instead of a makefile then the requirement for make goes away. (see http://rubyforge.org/projects/mkrf) which is a google SOC project If we had a configure file parser that would generate a platform dependent rakefile or a extconf.rb file we could use ruby tools to compile the C libraries also. (Sounds like a good Ruby Quiz candidate) On 7/22/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > On 7/21/06, Patrick Hurley wrote: > > I love Ruby and will use it under Linux and Win32 regardless of the > > final decision that is made. I would say that if Microsoft was willing > > to provide some tools or bounties on a tool chain that would allow > > people using their OS to make better use of more Open Source libraries > > (autoconf, bash, etc) - with their compiler at the core that would > > probably be best - and while I am dreaming how do they feel about > > providing a Unix like fork API . > > They may. I don't know. What I *can* say is that before I went on > vacation, I was on a conference call with several VC++ development > team members and they seemed interested in figuring out what can be > done to make it easier/better to build Ruby and extensions with the > latest Visual Studio. > > So ... let me make a very public call: let this issue rest for a few > weeks. I am still about two weeks from finishing my vacation and I > cannot meaningfully talk to Microsoft about these and other issues > until then. I will be getting Curt and a couple of other people who > have posted exceptionally insightful posts involved with the larger > discussion. It may be that we could convince Microsoft to have a gcc > command-line compatibility mode tool or something like that. It may be > that there are other options. > > The issue is most visible on Windows right now because of the > proliferation of compilers available (gcc has strangled most others on > other platforms), but the reality is that the Ruby toolchain needs to > be built better and more cross-platform. No one so far has stepped up > to do that, and I will *freely* state that I'm not qualified to do it. > Someone needs to make extconf.rb and other tools much more > platform-neutral so that we aren't bitten by people putting > compiler/platform-specific CFLAGS in their extconf.rb. > > Talking about *that* would be far more productive than trying to force > the decision on MinGW or VS at this point. I have been *very* > insistent with Microsoft that whatever happens, we need to have a way > that we can end up trusting the results of someone who compiles with > MinGW (because the library that they're working on doesn't build well > with VC++) or with VS8. > > That's why I've been asking for much more information than I've been > getting until this thread. Without this sort of information, I can't > show Microsoft how frustrating the situation is for Ruby developers on > Windows. Mainly because my goal is a better, faster, *more up to > date*, and more stable Ruby on Windows. I don't actually do any > extension compiling on Windows (well, not usually). > > -austin > -- > Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ > * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ > * austin@zieglers.ca > > ------=_Part_214678_2488136.1153774381490--