[Rubygems-developers] Specifying a platform

Gavin Sinclair gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Sun Apr 18 02:54:05 EDT 2004


On Saturday, April 17, 2004, 11:04:28 PM, Chad wrote:


>> There are a few points to make here.
>>
>> 1. The error message given there is a bit fearsome.  I'm not sure what
>>    the current policy on error messages is, but I'm sure this one can
>>    be improved.  I'll take advice and then make the change myself.
>>

> This is just one of those bad error messages (stack traces) that hasn't
> yet been cleaned up.

Fixed.  I've gone and made all exception classes we create inherit
from the new class Gem::Exception.  That makes it possible to catch
them separately and generally.

>> 2. Why is a platform required?  I understand platform to be "what kind
>>    of machine this can run on", which is fine, but what does "Ruby"
>>    mean as a platform?  If a gem is platform-independent, does a
>>    platform need to be specified?  If we must have "Ruby" meaning
>>    "platform-independent Ruby-based gem", can it be the default
>>    setting?
>>
>>    Platform suggests to me a binary gem, I suppose.
>>

> RUBY is indeed intended to mean that the gem is cross-platform.  I 
> think RUBY being a default is a sensible way to go about it.

Sounds good.  I agree with Rich's comment elsewhere that Ruby *is* a
platform.  So we can treat it as the default platform.

But then, what if a gem includes C code as well as Ruby code?  And
what if that C code uses, for instance, "fork"?  This platform
business might need some more definition.

>> 3. Naming.  I've brought this up before, but buried within a thread.
>>    When I had "Gem::Platform::RUBY" specified as the platform for
>>    "ruby-dict", it built fine, but the gem was named
>>    "ruby-dict-ruby-0.9.2.gem".
>>

> The addition of "-ruby-" in the name crept in quietly during one of the
> enhancements someone (was it me?) was doing over the past month.  I 
> feel like there's no reason to keep it for cross-platform gems, but 
> someone might have a reason they needed it.  Is this true?

>>
>>      wx-windows-(mswin)-0.3.2.gem
>>      wx-windows-(osx)-0.3.2.gem
>>      etc.
>>

> I would prefer not to use characters that I have to escape in the shell.

> tashi-delek:~ chadfowler$ touch test-(win32)
> -bash: syntax error near unexpected token `('

>> [...]

> I guess it's a subjective difference, but the parentheses *really* 
> bother me.

I think your POV is quite valid.  I'd not thought of that.

> So, do we agree that we don't need -ruby- in the name of a gem?

Yes :)

If my assumption that an platform specification implies a binary gem
is correct (is it?) then a reordering *might* make sense.

      wx-windows-0.3.2-mswin.gem
      wx-windows-0.3.2-powerpc-darwin.gem

I think it's easier to parse and less likely to confuse or conflict,
but is it sensible and appealing?

Gavin

P.S. To address another point raised elsewhere in this thread, I do
believe that the platform should be present in the filename (unless
it's Ruby), because sometimes it's all that differentiates two gems.
Is it not?






More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list