drbrain at segment7.net
Fri Dec 8 14:04:10 EST 2006
On Dec 8, 2006, at 08:10 , Grant Hollingworth wrote:
> * Eric Hodel <drbrain at segment7.net> [2006-12-08 01:05]:
>> mswin32 has been outrageously successful, but linux and darwin
> Linux and Darwin don't have so many special cases. Or at least
> they're far more likely to have a compiler.
But not 100% likely. Tattle will tell us more.
>> I think we'll need a DARWIN_INTEL and DARWIN_UNIVERSAL, a more-
>> generic linux, and ...?
> Separating architecture and OS might be a good idea. And perhaps a
> distinction between source and binary packages?
If you're going to make this split you'll need arch, platform and
compiler (for win32). And it isn't backwards-compatible with the
> What does a platform of i586-linux mean, exactly? That it's
> compiled already? That it contains assembly that only works on
> i586? Special compiler flags?
Just "compiled for linux x86".
Eric Hodel - drbrain at segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!
More information about the Rubygems-developers