[Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?
Status: Inactive
Brought to you by:
lyle
From: <ly...@kn...> - 2004-06-23 15:20:36
|
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 |