So we're good to go, or do I have to buy a Windows 7 machine to test this
out ?

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 07:58, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> wrote:

> For what it's worth, 1.4.0 RC3 installed cleanly on my Windows 7 machine:
>
> C:\Users\Owner\Downloads>gem install buildr-1.4.0-x86-mswin32.gem
> **************************************************
>
>  Thank you for installing rspec-1.2.9
>
>  Please be sure to read History.rdoc and Upgrade.rdoc
>  for useful information about this release.
>
> **************************************************
> To get started run buildr --help
> Successfully installed json_pure-1.4.0
> Successfully installed rubyforge-2.0.3
> Successfully installed rspec-1.2.9
> Successfully installed buildr-1.4.0-x86-mswin32
> 4 gems installed
> Installing ri documentation for json_pure-1.4.0...
> Installing ri documentation for rubyforge-2.0.3...
> Installing ri documentation for rspec-1.2.9...
> Installing ri documentation for buildr-1.4.0-x86-mswin32...
> Installing RDoc documentation for json_pure-1.4.0...
> Installing RDoc documentation for rubyforge-2.0.3...
> Installing RDoc documentation for rspec-1.2.9...
> Could not find main page README.rdoc
> Could not find main page README.rdoc
> Could not find main page README.rdoc
> Could not find main page README.rdoc
> Installing RDoc documentation for buildr-1.4.0-x86-mswin32...
>
> C:\Users\Owner\Downloads>
>
> and I was able to 'sucessfully' build the Apache Ode trunk... up to a point
> where it failed with a compile error.
>
> alex
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]
> >wrote:
>
> > Haven't gotten to it yet;  my Windows machine suffered a power-supply
> > blowout yesterday when I turned it on :(
> >
> > alex
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> My testing didn't get very far, since gem was unable to build the
> >> dependencies when I ran `rake setup` under MRI.  I'm guessing either our
> >> gemspec is wrong, or Gem itself has a bug w.r.t. Windows 7 x86_64.  I
> had
> >> other problems with JRuby (not Buildr-related) and wasn't able to do any
> >> meaningful testing in that area.
> >>
> >> Hopefully Alex had more luck.  :-)
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Antoine Toulme <[email protected]
> >> >wrote:
> >>
> >> > Did you get anything from the testing ? Or should I consider getting a
> >> VM
> >> > (please, no, please!)
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 15:04, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I have Windows 7, so I'll try to do some quick testing tonight.
> >> > > Hopefully the fix is something reasonably straightforward; it would
> be
> >> > > disappointing if windows 7 broke Buildr in more fundamental ways.
> >> > >
> >> > > Daniel
> >> > >
> >> > > On May 4, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Antoine Toulme <[email protected]
> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > I don't have a windows 7 machine handy for testing so I'm kinda
> >> stuck.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 14:56, Alex Boisvert
> >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Antoine Toulme <
> >> > [email protected]
> >> > > >> >wrote:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> We have spec failures on Windows 7, and it looks like we might
> >> > > >>> need to
> >> > > >>> change packaging for that new OS.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> It would be good to know if the release actually works on
> Windows.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Are the spec failures false negatives, or blocking issues?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I would be ok with releasing now but we will need a maintenance
> >> > > >> release
> >> > > >>> with
> >> > > >>> complete windows 7 support and JRuby 1.5 quickly.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Same here, assuming there are no real blockers on Windows.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> I wouldn't want people running "gem update" on Windows and
> finding
> >> > > >> their
> >> > > >> Buildr install broken.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> alex
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to