ruby 3.1 download

[dsisnero]

What problems are you experiencing?

Trying to get latest ruby

Steps to reproduce

Go to https://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/ and no option to download latest ruby

What's the output from ridk version?

[rubyFeedback]

Oh yes I just came here because of the same issue, asking how difficult it would be
to add a ruby 3.1.0 variant for the downloads.

I already tested this version on my Linux box, and the improvements made are quite
nice; I love the improvements to irb or mame's better error reporting.

Would be great to have this on windows available too.

[MSP-Greg]

Check the releases here.

https://github.com/oneclick/rubyinstaller2/releases/tag/RubyInstaller-3.1.0-1

[larskanis]

Downloads and release post on https://rubyinstaller.org are online now. You should use the release section of this project with caution before it's on rubyinstaller.org. I sometimes revoked it, when there was an issue at final testing. And when it's online, then the downloads.yml can be used to generate the ruby-setup files per https://github.com/ruby/setup-ruby/blob/master/generate-windows-versions.rb .

[larskanis]

I'm curious about the UCRT change. I hope it works, but let me know if not!

[MSP-Greg]

I hope it works

It works, but Actions & setup-ruby do not...

[MSP-Greg]

@larskanis

Have you thought of a PR to ruby/ruby for win32/dll_directory? Seems reasonable for all the dll resolution issues that come up with Windows... Thanks for your work on 3.1.0.

Between Christmas and New Years should be a relaxing week. But, for a few...

[larskanis]

Have you thought of a PR to ruby/ruby for win32/dll_directory?

Yes, could make sense. For now I just wanted a proper and fast solution. For inclusion into ruby it probably requires some discussion about the API first.

[larskanis]

Between Christmas and New Years should be a relaxing week. But, for a few...

In addition I always have two birthdays to celebrate in this week. So yes, a busy week.

[MSP-Greg]

probably requires some discussion about the API first.

True. Given the issues with dll resolution when relying on ENV['Path'], one would think the core team would approve. A common issue is the OpenSSL dll's installed in C:/Windows/System32 by whatever that VC build is called...