[#1884] multiple exceptions for assert_raises — nobu.nokada@...

Hi,

14 messages 2003/12/04

[#1932] --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>

[ruby-talk: 87759] and the surrounding thread seem to indicate that

29 messages 2003/12/11
[#1933] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/11

Hi,

[#1934] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/11

On Dec 11, 2003, at 11:49, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#1935] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — ts <decoux@...> 2003/12/11

>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:

[#1937] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — nobu.nokada@... 2003/12/11

Hi,

[#1938] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/12

On Dec 11, 2003, at 16:10, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#1939] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/12

Hi,

[#1941] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/12

Hi,

[#1943] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/12

On Dec 11, 2003, at 20:48, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#1953] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/13

Hi,

[#1959] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — ts <decoux@...> 2003/12/14

>>>>> "Y" == Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:

[#1961] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/15

Hi,

[#1962] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — ts <decoux@...> 2003/12/15

>>>>> "Y" == Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:

[#1936] Can't define +@ for Symbol (plus ruby install problem) — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>

I wanted to see if the +@ problem was fixed in 1.8.1 preview 3 but when I do

11 messages 2003/12/11

[#1973] Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

48 messages 2003/12/15
[#1982] Re: Where to install documentation — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2003/12/15

Dave Thomas (dave@pragprog.com) wrote:

[#1984] Re: Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/12/15

[#1991] Re: Where to install documentation — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...> 2003/12/16

>

[#1992] Re: Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/12/16

[#2000] Re: Where to install documentation — Minero Aoki <aamine@...> 2003/12/16

Hi,

[#2002] Re: Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/12/16

[#2037] --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>

I've finally been able to test my application under load using the

25 messages 2003/12/23
[#2038] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

Hi,

[#2039] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:17, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2040] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

Hi,

[#2041] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:34, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2042] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

Hi,

[#2043] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:44, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2045] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

Hi,

[#2046] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

> I'm afraid you're using old configure file. Can you wipe off old

[#2049] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

On Dec 23, 2003, at 15:18, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:

[#2050] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

In message "Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults..."

[#2122] Bad interaction between timeout.rb and --enable-pthread — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>

Here's a testcase that shows the problem:

13 messages 2003/12/31
[#2123] sleep is broken with --enable-pthread [Was: Bad interaction between timeout.rb and --enable-pthread] — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/31

I should have reduced it more before posting...

Re: Where to install documentation

From: "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-12-16 06:08:05 UTC
List: ruby-core #1999
>> 'site_ruby' implies libraries, not documentation.

[Dave:]
> I think I disagree, but I'll bow to Matz.
>
> To me, site_ruby is stuff that's global to a site (things that have
> been installed locally, but that are available to all local users). The
> standard lib/1.8 stuff are files that are global, but that are managed
> as part of the base Ruby install. This way, the stuff in site_ruby is
> protected against change when new minor releases of Ruby are installed.

Good point.

> Because of this, I want to support three directories in the standard
> search path for ri:
>
> 1. The system one, where documentation distributed with Ruby is stored
> 2. The site one, where admins store documentation on stuff that''s
>    available site-wide, and
> 3. The user one, which is under a user's home directory, and which
>    doesn't require root access to write to.

This is certainly a good idea.  So I propose the following, assuming
$prefix == "/usr":

  /usr/lib/ruby/doc/1.8/             <system documentation directory>
  /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/doc/1.8/   <site-wide documentation dir>
  ~/.ruby/doc/1.8/                   <user's installed documentation>

This is a neat and consistent trio.  The user's directory looks too
verbose for some tastes, but consider this:

 * The user's documentation directory needs to take account of the
   Ruby version, just like the system and site-wide ones.

 * ~/.rdoc is not accurate: RDoc output forms part of a package's
   installed documentation, but not all of it.  Other files include
   README, TODO, ChangeLog, etc.  "~/.ruby_doc" is better.

 * Taking the above two points together, we need "~/.ruby_doc/1.8/".
   Given that, we might as well change one character and make it
   look like the system and site-wide directories: ~/.ruby/doc/1.8/


>> Also, the "dbi-0.0.20" documentation is independent of the *Ruby*
>> version, so it shouldn't be buried in 'site-ruby/1.8' somewhere.
>
> Actually, not true (typically). When you install a package under (say)
> Ruby 1.6, it won't be available under 1.8 unless you reinstall it. I
> want the documentation to have the same behavior.

Another good point.  I built that into my suggestions above.

> Thanks for the discussion: it's helping clarify my thinking.

Me too.

Cheers,
Gavin



In This Thread