On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:28:48PM +0200, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > Ben Haskell wrote: > > > On Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Bram Moolenaar wrote: > > > > > > > > I have a new PC with Windows 7 that I want to use to build Vim for > > > distribution. [...] > > > > > > Now building with all the interfaces. I installed: > > > [...] > > > Ruby 1.9.2 (from www.garbagecollect.jp, see help file) > > > Rename include dir from 1.9.1 to 1.9.2 > > > Remove check for _MSC_VER from config.h > > > Copy bin/msvcrt-ruby191.dll to C:\Windows\msvcrt-ruby192.dll > > > [...] > > > > > > The Ruby install has 1.9.1 files even though I installed 1.9.2, very > > > confusing. I just renamed the files. > > > > Possibly important from a packaging perspective: > > > > You shouldn't have to rename the files. Ruby 1.9.2 and 1.9.3 are > > "library compatible" with 1.9.1น. It seems like it'd be a PITA to have > > to compile against a specific, non-standard version of Ruby. > > The DLL distributed must have changed, but it was still called 191.
It should be. It's the same ABI. > Having a .h file in a directory with a version that differs from the > distributed version is not going to help anyone, just make things more > complicated since there are two versions to specify. I'm trying not to > call this a bug, but I would consider it. Ruby's distribution version and its ABI version are two separate things. Ruby based the ABI on the full version of the last ABI break (1.9.1). This is similar to what happens with Perl, Python, Lua, and many other projects except they tend to base the ABI version on major.minor. -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
