Re: [Fxruby-users] [Q] Alternatives to the source RubyGem format?

[Gilles F. <gil...@fr...>]

ly...@kn... a =E9crit :
> All,
>=20
> In a separate post, Yuri asked: "Do you plan to provide gems as the onl=
y
> source package format? I think rubygems is a terrific thing, but I also
> suppose there must be a choice."
>=20
> Despite the fact that it still has some rough edges, I really like the =
idea
> of RubyGems and want to do what I can to encourage its adoption in the =
Ruby
> community. But as I've previously stated, the choice to use RubyGems as=
 the
> distribution format for FXRuby 1.2 is a sort of experiment while we're =
still
> in the "alpha" release stage.
>=20
> So my question is, based on your experiences so far, what do you see as=
 the
> disadvantages of sticking with "source" RubyGems as the distribution me=
thod,
> as opposed to the previously available source tarballs? I'm absolutely =
fine
> with offering alternative distributions if we have a compelling reason =
to do
> so. On the other hand, I want to avoid confusion in terms of multiple s=
ets
> of instructions about the different ways to build and install the code,
> depending on which distribution you've downloaded.
>=20
> Let me repeat: this is *not* a done deal. I sincerely want to know what=
 you
> guys are thinking about this.
>=20
> Thanks in advance for your comments,
>=20
> Lyle

The only question I have is related to existing Linux distribution=20
packaging systems.
For instance, Debian. Say I installed Ruby and RubyGems using apt-get,=20
and FXRuby isn't packaged yet. I can see three way of installing FXRuby:
1- As root, using RubyGems - Not the "Debian way"
2- As a user using RubyGems - Is it possible to install FXRuby this way=20
in user space ?
3- Using FXRuby sources + checkinstall to build a rough debian package.

My prefered solution for now is the last one.

Cheers,
_gilles.