[Rubygems-developers] pure-ruby vs. compile-on-intsall
transfire at gmail.com
Tue Nov 6 00:41:48 EST 2007
On Nov 6, 2007 12:33 AM, Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/5/07, Trans <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm a bit confused. If I have a pure-ruby version of my lib, but also
> > have some extensions that can speed things up, should the pure-ruby
> > gem be named plainly? Eg. 'foo-1.0.0.gem'. But then what platform is
> > the compile-on-install gem? Am I going about this wrong? I'm starting
> > to think it would be easier to create two packages, one for the
> > pure-ruby gem and another for the optional extensions.
> The confusion is based on your design.
My design was based on my confusion ;-p
> The general understanding is
> that RUBY platform (the pure-ruby you mention) is aimed to gems that
> provide functionality and optionally can include native extensions (as
> source code) that will trigger the build-on-install procedure of
> So: the pure ruby is a pure-ruby, no extensions source code inside.
> On he contrary, the pre build gems ships the extension binaries for
> the platforms I commented on previous post.
> If your gem can "optionally" get enhancements based on C extensions,
> you should package those as other gems, and make your gem do not
> depend on them, but that take advantage of it if present.
> So is a bit flexible and depends on your strategy.
Ok. I think I understand now. Thanks.
More information about the Rubygems-developers