[Ironruby-core] Littl' question about the build process

John Lam (DLR) jflam at microsoft.com
Tue Jan 15 09:56:25 EST 2008

Thibaut Barrère:

> I need some clarifications for my readers: I believe we have three
> ways of compiling IronRuby today:
> - through the rake compile task (is it the preferred way ?)
> - through IronRuby.sln (for 2005)
> - through Ruby.sln (for 2008 ?)
> Are both the .sln files maintained ? Is my guess correct about
> 2005/2008 ?

The IronRuby.sln file is for external folks to use. Ruby.sln is one that reflects the legacy source code layout in our internal tree.

> In the long run, are all these intented to be maintained ?

For the forseeable future, yes.

> ps: John I wrote you an email a while back but I'm not sure you got it
> actually. I was suggesting we could (in a couple of weeks maybe,
> unless it's already done internally at ms ?) grab a couple of the most
> widely used ruby gems, focus on those with unit tests or specs (or
> write a couple of integration tests ourselves), and setup a continuous
> integration server to run those gems tests through rbx.

I'm going to forward my reply to you - I sent a reply out yesterday, but to myself :)

But for the benefit of the list, we're focusing on doing gap analysis- there's a new task that I've added to the rakefile that uses set_trace_func to trace all calls that a target application makes. It also reflects over the IronRuby libraries and diffs the output for standard library types. This way we have a complete list of all of the library methods that need to be implemented to run that app. I've completed the analysis for gem install, which is the first 'real app' milestone that we want to get working. We're about 140 methods short today, with the bulk of those mapping to regex and YAML and socket-based IO.


More information about the Ironruby-core mailing list