[Rubygems-developers] pure-ruby vs. compile-on-intsall

Trans transfire at gmail.com
Wed Nov 7 04:50:00 EST 2007


On Nov 6, 2007 12:41 AM, Trans <transfire at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I need to provide these:

  * pure ruby version
  * compile-on-install version
  * win32 pre-built version

I would like to make the first two a single gem, rather then two
separate gems. To do that I need RubyGems not to abort if make fails.
I am going to try to figure out a way to do that. But if someone
already has an idea how, please let me know.

T.


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list