From langstefan at gmx.at Tue Nov 1 05:24:44 2005 From: langstefan at gmx.at (Stefan Lang) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 11:24:44 +0100 Subject: [Rant] Rant 0.4.8 released In-Reply-To: <4366B169.30307@skynet.be> References: <200510312035.15488.langstefan@gmx.at> <4366B169.30307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200511011124.44667.langstefan@gmx.at> On Tuesday 01 November 2005 01:06, Lionel Thiry wrote: > Stefan Lang a ?crit : > >== What's new in this release? > > > >Incompatible changes: > >* The filenames Rantfile.rb and rantfile.rb which > > were deprecated since the last release aren't recognized > > anymore. Use Rantfile, rantfile or root.rant instead. > > What is the reason for this? A Rantfile is a ruby script after all > and most Editors will need the rb extension to know the correct > highlight to apply. 1. All Rantfiles I have seen so far simply used the filename "Rantfile" and all Rakefiles I have seen used "Rakefile". I concluded that the names [Rr]antfile.rb aren't really popular. 2. I needed a distinguishing name for Rantfiles in subdirectories. The best idea was "sub.rant" and for consistency I introduced "root.rant" to mean the same as "Rantfile". Now it is possible to use only Rantfile names that have the extension ".rant". 3. Since Rant would have needed to look for 5(!) different files as default Rantfile I decided to deprecate one "kind" of them. Because of #1 I decided that that would be "Rantfile.rb" and "rantfile.rb". 4. I deprecated the names with release 0.4.6, more than one month ago. rant 0.4.6 printed a fat warning. Since no one complained, I thought it wouldn't really hurt to drop the support for the deprecated names. Most editors can be configured to recognize Rantfiles anyway, though I know it is more comfortable to rely on *.rb to recognize it as Ruby file. At least VIM 6.4 detects Rantfiles per default :) Perhaps if more people complain, Rantfile.rb can be reintroduced. > Your work is impressive as usual! Thanks! :) Thank you! Kind regards, Stefan From lthiry at skynet.be Tue Nov 1 11:40:04 2005 From: lthiry at skynet.be (Lionel Thiry) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:40:04 +0100 Subject: [Rant] Rant 0.4.8 released In-Reply-To: <200511011124.44667.langstefan@gmx.at> References: <200510312035.15488.langstefan@gmx.at> <4366B169.30307@skynet.be> <200511011124.44667.langstefan@gmx.at> Message-ID: <43679A64.7050703@skynet.be> Stefan Lang a ?crit : >On Tuesday 01 November 2005 01:06, Lionel Thiry wrote: > > >>Stefan Lang a ?crit : >> >> >>>== What's new in this release? >>> >>>Incompatible changes: >>>* The filenames Rantfile.rb and rantfile.rb which >>> were deprecated since the last release aren't recognized >>>anymore. Use Rantfile, rantfile or root.rant instead. >>> >>> >>What is the reason for this? A Rantfile is a ruby script after all >>and most Editors will need the rb extension to know the correct >>highlight to apply. >> >> > >1. All Rantfiles I have seen so far simply used the filename > "Rantfile" and all Rakefiles I have seen used "Rakefile". I > concluded that the names [Rr]antfile.rb aren't really popular. > > Look on the mailing list for a recent post: subject rake : rakefile vs. rakefile.rb sender itsme123) >2. I needed a distinguishing name for Rantfiles in subdirectories. > The best idea was "sub.rant" and for consistency I introduced > "root.rant" to mean the same as "Rantfile". Now it is possible > to use only Rantfile names that have the extension ".rant". >3. Since Rant would have needed to look for 5(!) different > files as default Rantfile I decided to deprecate one "kind" > of them. Because of #1 I decided that that would be > "Rantfile.rb" and "rantfile.rb". >4. I deprecated the names with release 0.4.6, more than one month > ago. rant 0.4.6 printed a fat warning. Since no one complained, > I thought it wouldn't really hurt to drop the support for > the deprecated names. > > >Most editors can be configured to recognize Rantfiles anyway, >though I know it is more comfortable to rely on *.rb to recognize >it as Ruby file. At least VIM 6.4 detects Rantfiles per default :) > > >Perhaps if more people complain, Rantfile.rb can be reintroduced. > > We are not that many expressing ourselves on this mailing list. Hope that it will change though. -- Lionel Thiry Personal web site: http://users.skynet.be/lthiry/ From langstefan at gmx.at Tue Nov 1 14:27:41 2005 From: langstefan at gmx.at (Stefan Lang) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 20:27:41 +0100 Subject: [Rant] Rant 0.4.8 released In-Reply-To: <43679A64.7050703@skynet.be> References: <200510312035.15488.langstefan@gmx.at> <200511011124.44667.langstefan@gmx.at> <43679A64.7050703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200511012027.41386.langstefan@gmx.at> On Tuesday 01 November 2005 17:40, Lionel Thiry wrote: > >Perhaps if more people complain, Rantfile.rb can be reintroduced. > > We are not that many expressing ourselves on this mailing list. > Hope that it will change though. Hoping too. To be fair, I'll ask people in the next release anouncement on ruby-talk. If you really want to use a .rb extension you could put a single "source" statement in "Rantfile", e.g.: source "Rantfile.rb" Regards, Stefan From langstefan at gmx.at Tue Nov 1 15:18:39 2005 From: langstefan at gmx.at (Stefan Lang) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 21:18:39 +0100 Subject: [Rant] dry-run Message-ID: <200511012118.39482.langstefan@gmx.at> Latest Rant from repository has a --dry-run (-n) option now. Example: % cat Rantfile import "command" task :install => "foo" do sys.install "foo", "/usr/local/bin", :mode => 0755 end gen Command, "foo", "foo.c", "cc -o $(>) $(<)" % rant -n Executing "foo" - SHELL cc -o foo foo.c Executing "install" - Ruby Proc at Rantfile:3 % rant cc -o foo foo.c install -c -m 0755 foo /usr/local/bin % rant -n Executing "install" - Ruby Proc at Rantfile:3 -- Stefan From G.B.Stott at bolton.ac.uk Fri Nov 4 03:33:57 2005 From: G.B.Stott at bolton.ac.uk (Barrie Stott) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:33:57 +0000 Subject: [Rant] Problem installing rant-0.4.6.gem Message-ID: <20051104083357.GA998@bathost> To be fair, I don't know if my problem is with rant or with gem. Below is a transcript of what I did. It would be nice to use `gem -r' but I need root privileges and I don't fancy being on the net as root. Consequently, I downloaded rant-0.4.6.gem and used `gem -l'. It's complaining about Regexp that I thought was part of Ruby1.8 itself. Any suggestions would be much appreciated. I'm relatively new to gem (0.8.3) and the documentation which came with it is not sufficient for me. Barrie. ------------------------ Script started on Thu 03 Nov 2005 22:50:31 GMT root at bathost:/home/gbs/ruby/raa# gem install rant -l -v 0.4.6 -t Attempting local installation of 'rant' Successfully installed rant, version 0.4.6 Installing RDoc documentation for rant-0.4.6... lib/rant/rantlib.rb:34:20: Couldn't find Regexp. Assuming it's a module lib/rant/rantlib.rb:603:52: Skipping require of dynamic string: "rant/import/#{arg}" lib/rant/rantlib.rb:636:51: Skipping require of dynamic string: "rant/plugin/#{lc_pl_name}" lib/rant/rantsys.rb:16:26: unexpected token: '#' lib/rant/rantsys.rb:18:22: unexpected token: '#' lib/rant/rantsys.rb:617:26: unexpected token: '#' There are no unit tests to run for rant-0.4.6 ERROR: While executing gem ... (NoMethodError) undefined method `passed?' for nil:NilClass root at bathost:/home/gbs/ruby/raa# Script done on Thu 03 Nov 2005 22:51:42 GMT ------------------------ From langstefan at gmx.at Fri Nov 4 08:37:54 2005 From: langstefan at gmx.at (Stefan Lang) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 14:37:54 +0100 Subject: [Rant] Problem installing rant-0.4.6.gem In-Reply-To: <20051104083357.GA998@bathost> References: <20051104083357.GA998@bathost> Message-ID: <200511041437.54573.langstefan@gmx.at> On Friday 04 November 2005 09:33, Barrie Stott wrote: > To be fair, I don't know if my problem is with rant or with gem. > Below is a transcript of what I did. It would be nice to use `gem > -r' but I need root privileges and I don't fancy being on the net > as root. Consequently, I downloaded rant-0.4.6.gem and used `gem > -l'. It's complaining about Regexp that I thought was part of > Ruby1.8 itself. > > Any suggestions would be much appreciated. I'm relatively new to > gem (0.8.3) and the documentation which came with it is not > sufficient for me. > > Barrie. > ------------------------ > Script started on Thu 03 Nov 2005 22:50:31 GMT > root at bathost:/home/gbs/ruby/raa# gem install rant -l -v 0.4.6 -t > Attempting local installation of 'rant' > Successfully installed rant, version 0.4.6 > Installing RDoc documentation for rant-0.4.6... [... rdoc output] > There are no unit tests to run for rant-0.4.6 > ERROR: While executing gem ... (NoMethodError) > undefined method `passed?' for nil:NilClass The messages between "Installing RDoc ...." and "ERROR" are from rdoc, you can safely ignore them. The error is a gem bug. You specified the "-t" options to run unit tests, but the Rant gem disabled unit tests. There is no error if you install without -t option. Your Rant installation should work correctly, since the error occured *after* the installation procedure. If you want to run the test suite, download the tgz/zip file, unpack it, cd to rant- and run the tests with: ruby run_rant tall The test process will write to files under the test/ directory. Don't mind messages during the test process, as long as the last line states that there were no failures. BTW, may I know why you install Rant 0.4.6? There is already Rant 0.4.8 released. Kind regards, Stefan From G.B.Stott at bolton.ac.uk Fri Nov 4 12:37:42 2005 From: G.B.Stott at bolton.ac.uk (Barrie Stott) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:37:42 +0000 Subject: [Rant] Problem installing rant-0.4.6.gem Message-ID: <20051104173742.GA3186@bathost> Many thanks for the speedy reply. Apart from the rdoc stuff, everything seems straightforward with your explanation. It seems that Rdoc, which is part of ruby1.8, cannot find Regexp, which is also part of 1.8. The reason I used rant-0.4.6 was because I had it locally. When I sent the message, I picked up rant-0.4.8, which has the -n dry-run stuff. I'm very grateful and no reply is needed. Barrie. From robert at vaccaperna.co.uk Wed Nov 9 08:03:43 2005 From: robert at vaccaperna.co.uk (Robert Cowham) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:03:43 -0000 Subject: [Rant] Suggestions Message-ID: <20051109130403.353FFB8471@davie.textdrive.com> Hi Just been reviewing Rant and it looks quite nice. I did wonder why it seemed fairly low level. For example, specifying rules to convert .o from .c seems to be just inherited from Make. Better approaches (particularly if you consider cross platform), seem to list source files and know that a .c is compiled to a .o/.obj and then linked to something with a .exe or no suffix depending on the platform. Also, such rules could come "out of the box" and exist for .c/.cpp etc? I am coming at this from experience with Jam/bjam and Scons. The latter is my main tools these days and has a lot of power. Robert From langstefan at gmx.at Wed Nov 9 17:38:53 2005 From: langstefan at gmx.at (Stefan Lang) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:38:53 +0100 Subject: [Rant] Suggestions In-Reply-To: <20051109130403.353FFB8471@davie.textdrive.com> References: <20051109130403.353FFB8471@davie.textdrive.com> Message-ID: <200511092338.53707.langstefan@gmx.at> On Wednesday 09 November 2005 14:03, Robert Cowham wrote: > Hi > > Just been reviewing Rant and it looks quite nice. > > I did wonder why it seemed fairly low level. For example, > specifying rules to convert .o from .c seems to be just inherited > from Make. Better approaches (particularly if you consider cross > platform), seem to list source files and know that a .c is compiled > to a .o/.obj and then linked to something with a .exe or no suffix > depending on the platform. This is planned and will be implemented on top of the currently available low level features. Then you can still use the low level stuff directly for special purposes. > Also, such rules could come "out of the box" and exist for .c/.cpp > etc? Will come, too. They will probably need to be activated with an "import" statement. > I am coming at this from experience with Jam/bjam and Scons. The > latter is my main tools these days and has a lot of power. I know scons a little bit, it has some influence on Rant development. I hope to release a Rant version with integrated C support in January. Of course I'm interested to hear further suggestions. Regards, Stefan From langstefan at gmx.at Tue Nov 22 17:19:12 2005 From: langstefan at gmx.at (Stefan Lang) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 23:19:12 +0100 Subject: [Rant] Rant 0.5.0 released Message-ID: <200511222319.13113.langstefan@gmx.at> == What's new in this release? Incompatible changes: * The undocumented filelist methods no_file, no_suffix and no_prefix require import "filelist/more" now. Deprecated: * The undocumented var.is method. It won't be in release 0.5.4 and later. * To use a (numeric) range as variable constraint, you should explicitely import "var/numbers" now. Also explicitely import "var/strings" to use the :String constraint and import "var/booleans" to use the :Bool constraint. Read Constraining variables in doc/advanced.rdoc. Fixes and minor improvements: * Fix a few warnings from ruby 1.8.0/1.8.1. * Prevent infinite rule recursion. * Documentation for common file system operations and path manipulation methods. Read doc/sys.rdoc. New features: * The --dry-run (-n) option for rant. Read doc/rant.rdoc. * Action takes a regular expression now. When rant looks for a task/file that matches the regular expression, the action block will get executed once. Read "More selective actions" in doc/advanced.rdoc. == Installing Rant You can install Rant as a RubyGem: ? ? % gem install --remote rant or download the package from RubyForge(http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=615) and install with install.rb: ? ? % ruby install.rb == Survey about "Rantfile.rb" Since the previous release (0.4.8), Rant doesn't recognize the filenames "Rantfile.rb" and "rantfile.rb" as default Rantfiles anymore. If you want them back, tell me now! If a reasonable number of users wants to use "Rantfile.rb"/"rantfile.rb", I will reintroduce those filenames (or one of them). == Resources Homepage:: visit http://make.ruby-co.de Rubyforge page:: http://rubyforge.org/projects/make/ Repository:: http://developer.berlios.de/svn/?group_id=5046 -- Stefan