[Rubygems-developers] Naming conventions for source and binary gems?

[Chad Fowler]

On 28/6/2004, at 4:00 PM, Lyle Johnson wrote:

> Guys,
>
> I didn't see any responses to these questions from Jeff Mitchell on
> the ruby-talk list:
>
>     http://www.ruby-talk.org/104609
>
> Are there any established (or required) naming conventions for
> "source" and "binary" gems yet? What do you guys think about Jeff's
> proposed naming convention? It matters to me because I want the next
> major release of FXRuby (the FXRuby 1.2 series) to be gems-based. That
> means that, as a minimum, there will be a source gem as well as some
> number of binary gems.
>

I think we should do some work on "natively" supporting binary gems to 
get things ready for this.  I can probably get started on this after we 
get back from vacation at the end of this week.  I don't think there's 
a lot left to do.  I'd mostly like to make the remote installer more 
intelligent about selecting the proper version based on platform.  
Naming conventions should be based on the platform specified in the 
gemspec (programatically derived).  Technically, binary gems work now, 
but it's more of a side effect of the way gems works than an 
intentional effort.  Feature-wise, I'd say this is one of the most 
important pre-1.0 features left.

Chad