[#2139] Best way to install ri documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

69 messages 2004/01/04
[#2140] Re: Best way to install ri documentation — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...> 2004/01/04

On Monday, January 5, 2004, 2:29:57 AM, Dave wrote:

[#2141] Re: Best way to install ri documentation — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2004/01/04

Hi,

[#2145] Re: Best way to install ri documentation — Richard Kilmer <rich@...> 2004/01/05

Perhaps make it available for mirrors and save ruby-lang's bandwidth?

[#2147] Re: Best way to install ri documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2004/01/05

[#2148] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2004/01/05

So, I'm thinking about doing the following? Is this OK with everyone?

[#2149] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this — "J.Herre" <jlst@...> 2004/01/05

[#2152] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2004/01/05

[#2153] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this — nobu.nokada@... 2004/01/05

Hi,

[#2154] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2004/01/05

[#2219] Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this — "James F. Hranicky" <jfh@...> 2004/01/12

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 00:47:41 +0900

[#2194] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — Ian Macdonald <ian@...>

Hello,

27 messages 2004/01/09
[#2195] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — Eivind Eklund <eivind@...> 2004/01/09

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 06:02:07PM +0900, Ian Macdonald wrote:

[#2199] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — Ian Macdonald <ian@...> 2004/01/09

On Fri 09 Jan 2004 at 23:10:02 +0900, Eivind Eklund wrote:

[#2200] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2004/01/10

Hi,

[#2203] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — Ian Macdonald <ian@...> 2004/01/11

On Sun 11 Jan 2004 at 00:47:33 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2206] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2004/01/11

Hi,

[#2208] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — Ian Macdonald <ian@...> 2004/01/11

On Sun 11 Jan 2004 at 21:40:22 +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2209] Re: [PATCH] File.readable_world? and File.writable_world? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2004/01/12

Hi,

[#2216] ruby aborts in data-handling applications — xsdg <xsdg@...>

I reported a similar bug about 2 or 3 months ago. The problem seemed to go

12 messages 2004/01/12

Re: Best way to install ri documentation -- please check this

From: "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
Date: 2004-01-06 04:44:12 UTC
List: ruby-core #2168
Hi,

> From: "Dave Thomas" <dave@pragprog.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 1:27 PM

> > 1. Rdocing requires ruby to be installed(yaml, etc.).  So target
> >   rdoc must depends install-nodoc.

> Could I use the same trick that 'make test' does, and simply add the 
> SO's to the appropriate path?

+1 to keep simple.  We Japanese developers once abandoned to run
test (test/ruby/*) without installing.  For example, loading
digest/md5/md5.so with 'require "digest/md5"' is difficult with
the trick (I know rdoc does not use md5 for now).

> > 2. miniruby might not be able to load syck.so so target rdoc must
> >   use ruby instead of miniruby.

> I wasn't sure about this: the miniruby on my platform seems to run 
> fine. Is this just a coincidence?

mswin and cygwin.

> > 3. there could not be sources in the current dir.

> I'm probably wrong, but doesn't the rest of the Makefile assume that 
> it's running in the source directory (there are dependencies on files 
> such a Makefile itself).

It doesn't (a bug if do).  Makefile might be generated at build dir.

> > By the way, configure option --disable-rdoc seems good.
> > --enable-rdoc is better for me (never mind. :-)
> 
> Could someone familiar with autoconf show me how to do this?

eban knows.

> Or, as I'm sensing some resistance here, should we simply change it so 
> that end-users need to do an explicit
> 
>     make doc

I prefer this.  Folks?

Regards,
// NaHi

In This Thread