From: Tom Sawyer Date: 2002-08-31T12:12:03+09:00 Subject: RE: proper upgrade to 1.7.3 --=-BQ9Ek/isSwAzDy9siDfq Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable duh! i totally spaced the fact that the compiled libraries would have to be recompiled for 1.7+ and would thus be installed to the correct location. silly me! :-) the pure ruby packages would probably be just fine though, but i might as well reinstall them too while i'm at it. -transami On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 21:00, Rich Kilmer wrote: > I have found that most modules are straigtforward to build. >=20 > Typically download the source and: >=20 > ruby extconf.rb > make > make install >=20 > Even on windows: >=20 > ruby extconf.rb > nmake > nmake install >=20 > Assuming you have libraries needed for extension. >=20 > -rich >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Lyle Johnson [mailto:lyle@knology.net]=20 > > Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 9:56 PM > > To: ruby-talk ML > > Subject: Re: proper upgrade to 1.7.3 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > "Tom Sawyer" wrote in message=20 > > news:1030755047.543.36.camel@silver... > >=20 > > > and, one more thing. i don't think these version directories under=20 > > > site-ruby are a good idea. why have them? most packages=20 > > will work just=20 > > > fine from one update to another. and if one does not, shouldn't the=20 > > > package maintainer take care of the versioning within the package=20 > > > itself? just some thoughts that may make life a easier. > >=20 > > Extension modules built for Ruby 1.6 are almost guaranteed=20 > > not to work for Ruby 1.7. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --=20 ~transami --=-BQ9Ek/isSwAzDy9siDfq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA9cDZDITYvPhXYDikRAs6bAJ0Vg1j90inl+R/Xzl+82S7wX+nduwCgtmPI uTOp6lJm4Qyf85pezAJ5DTE= =WlGp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-BQ9Ek/isSwAzDy9siDfq--