transfire at gmail.com
Thu Mar 22 13:01:23 EDT 2007
On 3/22/07, Patrick Hurley <phurley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/22/07, TRANS <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 3/21/07, Nic Williams <drnicwilliams at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'll bite.
> > >
> > > One popular bundle people might relate to is to bundle the rails gems
> > > together, as a demonstration.
> > >
> > > BTW, does/will your solution work for gems with components that get compiled
> > > at installation time? Probably not a showstopper though,. Gembundle still
> > > seems a good idea.
> > I don't see why not. It installs gems just like gems are currently
> > installed, this just adds a layer for packaging packages --hence a
> > literal multi-package.
> But they are built on the target system correct? I am actually (when I
> can find spare minutes) working on a binary builder, that will take a
> built from source binary gem from one system and create a new binary
> gem for that architecture. It is not elegant (I package up
> intermediate object files and the like), but in general I believe it
> will work. This is to simplify the use of gems with extensions on
> production servers that do not generally have a C compiler or other
> build tools.
Since I don't write any c code I am not aware. Gems doesn't have a
facility for compiling? I though t did. Well, however Gems works is
how Gembundles would work too. It just adds an extra multiple-package
More information about the Rubygems-developers