[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in

17 messages 2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005 — nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...> 2006/01/06

Hi,

[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)

Hi,

22 messages 2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/01/10

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/10

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/12

*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:

[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Hello,

23 messages 2006/01/28
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...> 2006/01/28

>

Re: [ ruby-Bugs-3317 ] trouble due ruby redefining posix function eaccess

From: nobu@...
Date: 2006-01-26 01:36:40 UTC
List: ruby-core #7214
Hi,

At Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:15:24 +0900,
Marcus Rueckert wrote in [ruby-core:07207]:
> > IMO, Ruby shouldn't be defining POSIX functions except on platforms
> > that don't support them, and probably not even then because of
> > possible conflicts. Look what happened with someone who tried to build
> > something with both Ruby and the APR recently and a definition of
> > pid_t instead of rb_pid_t.
> 
> yes. as mentioned on #ruby-lang we triggered it with compiling a koffice
> svn snapshot with ruby support.

Okey, anyway I committed a fix to check the presense of
eaccess(2) last night.

-- 
Nobu Nakada

In This Thread

Prev Next