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

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

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).

Yes, certainly. Whether we go to a Gem-based solution or stick with the
current options, you will still be able to download install a precompiled
version for Win32.

> 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?

I think I meant gem vs. non-gem. That is, I'd like to either stick with the
existing options (source tarball, traditional Win32 installer program) or
replace them with Gem-based equivalents (source & binary gems).

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

Good, that's what I wanted to know. So for example, I think the way this
would work is that you could remotely install the (binary) gem using a
command line like:

    gem --remote-install fxruby-1.2.0-win32.gem

Or if you've downloaded the gem and want to install it:

    gem --install fxruby-1.2.0-win32.gem

I'm not sure about the naming conventions and all that yet, but this is the
basic idea.

-- Lyle