fxruby-users

[Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?

[<ly...@kn...>]

All,

Traditionally I've distributed FXRuby as a source tarball and Win32
installer executables. As many of you may be aware, a new packaging and
distibution system for Ruby applications and libraries was kicked off at
last year's Ruby Conference in Austin. This project has a lot of momentum
behind it (see http://rubygems.rubyforge.org) and it seems likely that
RubyGems will become a standard part of Ruby in the future.

I'm strongly considering switching over a completely Gems-based distribution
of FXRuby for the 1.2 series, but I'd like to throw this out to you guys for
comments. I am specifically thinking that there would be (1) a "source" Gem,
which you'd download and run to build the code from sources (much like the
current source tarball); and (2) one or more "binary" Gems (probably Windows
only), which wouldn't require compilation (thus replacing the Win32
installer executables).

What do you guys think? This is certainly not a done deal, but on the other
hand I'd prefer to not support "all of the above". The advantages of going
with a Gems-based approach (in my mind) are the versioning and
dependency-checking capabilities that Gems provide. No disadvantages
immediately come to mind, but that's why I'm asking you for your feedback. ;)

Thanks in advance for your thoughts,

Lyle

Re: [Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?

[Joseph <rub...@te...>]

Hi Lyle.

I recommend you use whatever causes you the least work.

Joseph

Re: [Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?

[Rich <ri...@li...>]

I'm always going to pitch for the easiest to _install_ (which since I'm on a
windows os would mean a binary).

When you say you'd prefer to not support all of the above - does that mean
tarball -or- binary, or does that mean gem -or- non-gem?

If I can get a binary through a gem then I'm all for supporting the gem
version of distribution.

-Rich


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <ly...@kn...>
To: <fxr...@li...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:20 AM
Subject: [Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?


> All,
>
> Traditionally I've distributed FXRuby as a source tarball and Win32
> installer executables. As many of you may be aware, a new packaging and
> distibution system for Ruby applications and libraries was kicked off at
> last year's Ruby Conference in Austin. This project has a lot of momentum
> behind it (see http://rubygems.rubyforge.org) and it seems likely that
> RubyGems will become a standard part of Ruby in the future.
>
> I'm strongly considering switching over a completely Gems-based
distribution
> of FXRuby for the 1.2 series, but I'd like to throw this out to you guys
for
> comments. I am specifically thinking that there would be (1) a "source"
Gem,
> which you'd download and run to build the code from sources (much like the
> current source tarball); and (2) one or more "binary" Gems (probably
Windows
> only), which wouldn't require compilation (thus replacing the Win32
> installer executables).
>
> What do you guys think? This is certainly not a done deal, but on the
other
> hand I'd prefer to not support "all of the above". The advantages of going
> with a Gems-based approach (in my mind) are the versioning and
> dependency-checking capabilities that Gems provide. No disadvantages
> immediately come to mind, but that's why I'm asking you for your feedback.
;)
>
> Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
>
> Lyle
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
> Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
> digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
> unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
> _______________________________________________
> Fxruby-users mailing list
> Fxr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fxruby-users
>

Re: [Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?

[Duane J. <dua...@gm...>]

For Windows users, I'd suggest emphasizing whatever is easer for you,
Lyle, since if I am correct, most new users of ruby on windows (like
me) are apt to install the WindowsInstaller with FXRuby pre-packaged. 
There may be some more experienced users who want to customize their
windows ruby installation, however, and Gems would lend itself well to
that purpose.

Duane Johnson

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:58:53 -0600, Rich <ri...@li...> wrote:
> 
> I'm always going to pitch for the easiest to _install_ (which since I'm on a
> windows os would mean a binary).
> 
> When you say you'd prefer to not support all of the above - does that mean
> tarball -or- binary, or does that mean gem -or- non-gem?
> 
> If I can get a binary through a gem then I'm all for supporting the gem
> version of distribution.
> 
> -Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ly...@kn...>
> To: <fxr...@li...>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 9:20 AM
> Subject: [Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?
> 
> > All,
> >
> > Traditionally I've distributed FXRuby as a source tarball and Win32
> > installer executables. As many of you may be aware, a new packaging and
> > distibution system for Ruby applications and libraries was kicked off at
> > last year's Ruby Conference in Austin. This project has a lot of momentum
> > behind it (see http://rubygems.rubyforge.org) and it seems likely that
> > RubyGems will become a standard part of Ruby in the future.
> >
> > I'm strongly considering switching over a completely Gems-based
> distribution
> > of FXRuby for the 1.2 series, but I'd like to throw this out to you guys
> for
> > comments. I am specifically thinking that there would be (1) a "source"
> Gem,
> > which you'd download and run to build the code from sources (much like the
> > current source tarball); and (2) one or more "binary" Gems (probably
> Windows
> > only), which wouldn't require compilation (thus replacing the Win32
> > installer executables).
> >
> > What do you guys think? This is certainly not a done deal, but on the
> other
> > hand I'd prefer to not support "all of the above". The advantages of going
> > with a Gems-based approach (in my mind) are the versioning and
> > dependency-checking capabilities that Gems provide. No disadvantages
> > immediately come to mind, but that's why I'm asking you for your feedback.
> ;)
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your thoughts,
> >
> > Lyle
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
> > Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
> > digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
> > unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Fxruby-users mailing list
> > Fxr...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fxruby-users
> >
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
> Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 -
> digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches,
> unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com
> _______________________________________________
> Fxruby-users mailing list
> Fxr...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fxruby-users
>

Re: [Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?

[RLMuller <RLM...@Co...>]

Hi Lyle,

I vote for whatever is easiest for you.  I'm grateful for all the work
you've put into this stuff, both as a developer and as a tutor.  I don't
know anything about Gem and not all that much about Ruby yet,  but I'm
confident that we users will do just fine with whatever choice you make.

With gratitude,
Richard Muller



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.708 / Virus Database: 464 - Release Date: 6/19/2004