Re: [Fxruby-users] So what does everyone think about RubyGems?
Status: Inactive
Brought to you by:
lyle
From: <ly...@kn...> - 2004-06-23 19:33:34
|
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 |