How to compile Ruby from source on Windows for FS3

[VPDannyMan]

DWB.. What changed? I am feeling a little lazy today..

[digitalwhitebyte]

see the UPDATE section

[Tronic]

thx DWB for the guide.

[VPDannyMan]

Thanks DWB...

[Jay]

Hi guys

Im trying to follow the tutorial and build the ruby source but i am running into the wall when getting to the make part could someone take a look and tell me in which idiotic way I am doing things wrong? ive never done this before!

help.png (82.78 KiB) Viewed 17006 times

Thanks

[digitalwhitebyte]

== Build examples

* Build on the ruby source directory.

ex.)
ruby source directory: C:\ruby
build directory: C:\ruby
install directory: C:\usr\local

C:
cd \ruby
win32\configure --prefix=/usr/local
nmake
nmake test
nmake install

[VPDannyMan]

@Support, I'm just checking in to see if there has been any progress on fixing the "Ruby copying itself every time you run a plug" flaw..

Did you manage to get it statically linked instead of the DLL being copied?

Thank you

[digitalwhitebyte]

embedding ruby statically, could give difficulties in supporting external libraries.

I think instead we should adopt a system that let the user the ability to embed his version of ruby interpreter,
and and its external libraries, when you export a vst or an exe.
When you launch it will extract the folder chosen by the user to contain the whole file.
surely, others will say that they do not want to have files other than the exe or vst,
but seen as external libraries give way to expand the operation of ruby,
it is almost a choice, forced to have a system as explained above,
otherwise you are always limited and only to a ruby maimed.

and especially have the ability to perform loops and infinite cycle without colliding with the FS thread.

[VPDannyMan]

Yeah, but in that case can't we just have it so that we install it? The user would then just have to install your plug and that's the way it is. No more single DLL distribution. I am not a fan (at all) of having the plug copy the Ruby DLL every time it is ran. Even though, there is nothing malicious going on, that technique does not sit right with some users and potentially even virus scanners may find it kind of funny that a program copies a DLL file. A data file or even a graphics file I can understand, but copying a DLL, since its an executable is different..

Anyways DWB, I thought initially that you could include your own DLL as well, that made sense to me, I didn't realize it was hard coded into the app. If this copying has to continue, then at least you should be able to copy the DLL to your own custom folder, and calls to it should be made directly. However, I don't think ruby will allow that?

Its a bit of a mess really because the options are so limited on which way Malc can go.

[digitalwhitebyte]

the ruby interpreter DLL can be installed anywhere, the important thing to run it
is to pass it the exact paths of where to find the various libraries that will use.
The only attention is to choose appropriate folders depending on the system in use,
For this reason Malc chose to copy the ruby interpreter, in the folder
C: \ Users \ [UserName] \ AppData \ Roaming

with regard to the safety ruby is compiled with its manifest file,
then the antivirus and the system will check if it is safe,
all the more as with any program that uses special resources
the user will have a message of elevation of privileges to perform .

But again, the important things are how to give the user the possibility to embed also its libraries,
and export them into its own folder, if not already present, in the same way as it does now for the ruby library.

I have already made ​​something similar, but of course, for now it is an experiment work around.

you would think that by now the only app that installs are almost never a single file,
and step required is to expand the SSE instruction, I think it's time.
otherwise the real developers will never be lured by playing with FS.
But my words are only of personal discomfort