From: Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Date: 2009-05-29T02:20:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Installing Ruby 1.9.1 Binary on Windows Vista

On May 28, 11:30 am, "J. D." <jdezen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only issue I'm finding with upgrading is that some of the gem
> binaries are built on another version so I get an error
> msvcrt-ruby18.dll was not found.  I know it's occurring because I have
> msvcrt-ruby191.dll now and the gem was built with 18 instead of 191.
>

Yes, this is already exposed problem with RubyGems:

http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2009-April/004522.html

And suggestion to go with "Fat binaries" are a tempting option I'm
working on with original ideas form Aaron Patterson:

http://tenderlovemaking.com/2009/05/07/fat-binary-gems-make-the-rockin-world-go-round/

> That's the only downfall so far.
>
> What I don't understand is why don't the gem authors force a certain
> "require ruby version" when installing their gems so that we know which
> ones are 18 and which ones are 191...
>

Since RubyGems lack the ability to have 2 exact version number gems
(1.2.3) but targetting different Ruby versions (1.8.x, 1.9), renders
required_ruby_version kind of useless (as I pointed in RubyGems
mailing list).

> Having to fish for which gems are which and then having to go to the
> authors to find a new source is a bit frustrating.

Complain to the authors, or even better, patch and contribute the
changes.

Nothing else can be said since they are contributing for free with
their code for you to enjoy or be frustrated with.

--
Luis Lavena