[Rubygems-developers] Specifying a platform
gsinclair at soyabean.com.au
Sun Apr 18 13:09:31 EDT 2004
On Sunday, April 18, 2004, 5:40:24 AM, Chad wrote:
> On 17/4/2004, at 11:54 AM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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.
> This would be a platform-independent source gem, usually. But you're
> right about the fork() case. More thought required.
>> If my assumption that an platform specification implies a binary gem
>> is correct (is it?) then a reordering *might* make sense.
>> I think it's easier to parse and less likely to confuse or conflict,
>> but is it sensible and appealing?
> It might make a little more sense, but the parsing issue shouldn't be
> important. It *appears* that we would parse file names to get the
> platforms straight, but we really use the metadata. We only parse the
> file names as humans. So, it's probably not too important what order
> they're in.
OK, I think I have finally understood that point now :) That's good.
I've decided I definitely like wx-windows-0.3.2-powerpc-darwin better
than wx-windows-powerpc-darwin-0.3.2, because it's easier on the eye,
and it follows the "most general to most specific" format.
These will be the names we look at whenever we see a large remote
list, right? So "easier on the eye" seems like a good thing to me.
More information about the Rubygems-developers