From yakumo9275 at gmail.com Sat Aug 21 13:10:00 2010 From: yakumo9275 at gmail.com (Stuart George) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:10:00 -0400 Subject: [Rant-cafe] ruby 1.9 In-Reply-To: <1258904866.4711.380.camel@balin> References: <849b417c0911211249l55ad0c52sdc7740bbc715a43@mail.gmail.com> <1258884346.4711.305.camel@balin> <849b417c0911220708i5bb15fe4k653cbb016ba9c49a@mail.gmail.com> <1258904866.4711.380.camel@balin> Message-ID: A little update on rant + ruby 1.9.2, the current rant trunk plays just fine for me with ruby 1.9.2 (all bugs I had under 1.9.1 are gone). I did have to make some adjustments to my rant files and some things have a different behaviour. when using 192-head - I had a rule s = t.source.to_s.split('.lua')[0] Under 1.8 it was s = t.source.to_s.split('.lua') Apparently for some reason you have to bust out the first entry of the array. Also doing sys.cp "#{t.name}", ".." it removes the execute perms. -rwxr-xr-x foo ends up as -rw-r--r-- foo So I had to add some extra sys.chmod 0755, "../#{t.name}" commands liberally throught my rantfiles also doing a RUBY_PLATFORM.scan(/(mswin32|mingw32|bccwin32|msdosdjgpp|os2|amigaos|cygwin|x86_64-linux)/) required a [0] on the end, where in 1.8 it did not. I only use C stuff and nothing major so I'm sure there are other gotchas involved but these are the two big ones I've ran into. :: Stuart George :: http://mega-tokyo.com/family :: From russel at russel.org.uk Tue Aug 24 05:07:05 2010 From: russel at russel.org.uk (Russel Winder) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:07:05 +0100 Subject: [Rant-cafe] ruby 1.9 In-Reply-To: References: <849b417c0911211249l55ad0c52sdc7740bbc715a43@mail.gmail.com> <1258884346.4711.305.camel@balin> <849b417c0911220708i5bb15fe4k653cbb016ba9c49a@mail.gmail.com> <1258904866.4711.380.camel@balin> Message-ID: <1282640825.11539.5.camel@anglides> Stuart, On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 13:10 -0400, Stuart George wrote: > A little update on rant + ruby 1.9.2, the current rant trunk plays > just fine for me with ruby 1.9.2 (all bugs I had under 1.9.1 are gone). > > I did have to make some adjustments to my rant files and some things > have a different behaviour. It is good to know that current Rant trunk works under Ruby 1.9.2 albeit with some needs of amendment. I think though that unless some people "step up to the plate" and start work on evolving Rant, then it has to be considered a "dead project". After the last round of "is anyone interesting in developing Rant" resulted in no-one coming forward, I switch all my work over to using SCons. It will take a lot of serious effort to create for Rant the infrastructure needed to have it compete with SCons, Waf or even CMake. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: russel at russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From yakumo9275 at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 06:32:57 2010 From: yakumo9275 at gmail.com (Stuart George) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:32:57 -0400 Subject: [Rant-cafe] ruby 1.9 In-Reply-To: <1282640825.11539.5.camel@anglides> References: <849b417c0911211249l55ad0c52sdc7740bbc715a43@mail.gmail.com> <1258884346.4711.305.camel@balin> <849b417c0911220708i5bb15fe4k653cbb016ba9c49a@mail.gmail.com> <1258904866.4711.380.camel@balin> <1282640825.11539.5.camel@anglides> Message-ID: Ive switched over to premake4. I consider rant under 1.9.2 as only to be able to build my legacy stuff for the foreseeable future while I convert them over. I think the space it occupies is crowded enough so letting it die might be a good thing. Shame rake was chosen over rant but that is how it went and its time to move off. :: Stuart George :: http://mega-tokyo.com/family :: On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > Stuart, > > On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 13:10 -0400, Stuart George wrote: >> A little update on rant + ruby 1.9.2, the current rant trunk plays >> just fine for me with ruby 1.9.2 (all bugs I had under 1.9.1 are gone). >> >> I did have to make some adjustments to my rant files and some things >> have a different behaviour. > > It is good to know that current Rant trunk works under Ruby 1.9.2 albeit > with some needs of amendment. ?I think though that unless some people > "step up to the plate" and start work on evolving Rant, then it has to > be considered a "dead project". > > After the last round of "is anyone interesting in developing Rant" > resulted in no-one coming forward, I switch all my work over to using > SCons. ?It will take a lot of serious effort to create for Rant the > infrastructure needed to have it compete with SCons, Waf or even CMake. > > -- > Russel. > ============================================================================= > Dr Russel Winder ? ? ?t: +44 20 7585 2200 ? voip: sip:russel.winder at ekiga.net > 41 Buckmaster Road ? ?m: +44 7770 465 077 ? xmpp: russel at russel.org.uk > London SW11 1EN, UK ? w: www.russel.org.uk ?skype: russel_winder > From kevin.burge at systemware.com Tue Aug 24 08:52:51 2010 From: kevin.burge at systemware.com (Kevin Burge) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:52:51 -0500 Subject: [Rant-cafe] ruby 1.9 In-Reply-To: <1282640825.11539.5.camel@anglides> References: <849b417c0911211249l55ad0c52sdc7740bbc715a43@mail.gmail.com> <1258884346.4711.305.camel@balin> <849b417c0911220708i5bb15fe4k653cbb016ba9c49a@mail.gmail.com> <1258904866.4711.380.camel@balin> <1282640825.11539.5.camel@anglides> Message-ID: <4C73C0A3.8010006@systemware.com> We are still using rant here to build our C++ application in conjunction with another build tool called Jam. I've been slowly converting over to cmake as time permits. Unfortunately for us, the lack of ruby 1.9.2 support in rant prevents us from switching to 1.9.2 until we completely replace rant. I really liked rant also, but, with multi-core systems so prevalent, it's time to move on. On 08/24/2010 04:07 AM, Russel Winder wrote: > Stuart, > > On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 13:10 -0400, Stuart George wrote: > >> A little update on rant + ruby 1.9.2, the current rant trunk plays >> just fine for me with ruby 1.9.2 (all bugs I had under 1.9.1 are gone). >> >> I did have to make some adjustments to my rant files and some things >> have a different behaviour. >> > It is good to know that current Rant trunk works under Ruby 1.9.2 albeit > with some needs of amendment. I think though that unless some people > "step up to the plate" and start work on evolving Rant, then it has to > be considered a "dead project". > > After the last round of "is anyone interesting in developing Rant" > resulted in no-one coming forward, I switch all my work over to using > SCons. It will take a lot of serious effort to create for Rant the > infrastructure needed to have it compete with SCons, Waf or even CMake. > >