[#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 13:45:30 UTC
List: ruby-core #2005
On Tuesday, December 16, 2003, 6:05:40 PM, Gavin wrote:

>>> /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>
>>
>> Except the version number should come before /doc, because it has a
>> higher precedence, I think (remember the part about documentation being
>> version specific).

> Documentation is version specific, and whether we use doc/1.8 or 1.8/doc,
> that fact is honored.  I advocate doc/1.8 because I want to think "ah,
> this is where the documentation is stored" not "this is where everything
> to do with 1.8 is stored".

> I know you want to be able to "rm -rf 1.6", but I can handle one or two
> extra "rm -rf" steps in the uncommon activity of uninstalling Ruby.

> 'doc' should go higher in the directory structure than '1.8' because it is
> more general.

As a followup point, consider this.

  $ ls -1 /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8
  amrita
  dict.rb
  doc
  dot
  extensions
  install-pkg.rb
  markup
  rake
  rake.rb
  ...
  
You are proposing to put 'doc' in the 'site_ruby/1.8' directory, and I
have simulated that in the above listing.

But 'doc' is clearly not a sibling of 'dict.rb' or 'amrita' or 'rake'.
Therefore this directory is clearly a wrong place for it.
Furthermore, what if I created a package called 'doc', which
installed, as is custom, into the 'site_ruby/1.8/doc' directory?  Big
trouble.

Now the alternative.

  $ ls --expand-interesting-directories /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/
  1.6
  1.8
  doc/1.6
  doc/1.8

We could argue all day about whether 'doc' is a sensible sibling for
'1.6' and '1.8', and I couldn't argue strongly in favour.  However, at
least it's not clearly wrong.  And, given all the other locations
we've considered (especially that site-wide docs should be contained
within 'site_ruby'), this is the only arrangement I consider
reasonable.

More sensible would be

  $ ls --expand-interesting-directories /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/
  lib/1.6
  lib/1.8
  doc/1.6
  doc/1.8

(Or even the other way around: {1.6,1.8}/{lib,doc})  But it's too late
for that.

Cheers,
Gavin




In This Thread