[Nitro] Rolls sounds interesting

TRANS transfire at gmail.com
Fri Aug 4 12:59:46 EDT 2006

On 8/4/06, Fabian Buch <fabian at oggu.de> wrote:
> Am 04.08.2006 um 17:04 schrieb TRANS:
> > Not so sure about this. The fruitapp.rb file should only contain
> > "require 'frutiapp/x.rb'" --no version reference. In which case if
> > Rolls is installed then the versioned and non-versioned will work. If
> > Rolls is not installed then only the non-versioned will work.
> ic, so as developer I'd always provide it both versioned and non-
> versioned.

If you wish to provide for both possibilites then that is certainly an
option. Kind of like offering both a gem and a tar.gz. Bascially the
options are:

1. Provide only a rolled package and require the end-user have Rolls
installed (or use a tool liek Sow to unroll if they don't want to use

2. Provide ony a non-rolled package which the user can use normally or
use a tool, like Sow, to roll it first.

3. Provide both a rolled and a non-rolled package for the end-user to
choice between.

Keep in mind that when Sow is fully functional it will be able to pull
down apps/libs from the web too (like gems --remote). So lets say you
have a package foo. All you need to do is release a foo-x.y.z.tar.gz
package on Rubyforge or RAA, then, to get the latest version, the end
user only needs to do something like:

  sow install --roll foo

That's the ideal anyway. Sow and Roll aren't quite to that point yet,
but I'm not very far off.


More information about the Nitro-general mailing list