[Rubygems-developers] Is a "pure" platform needed?

Daniel Berger djberg96 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 13 14:35:44 EDT 2010

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri at medioh.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 3:51 PM, James Tucker <jftucker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We need to add a feature to really support this. The problem is, gems that
>> fail to build although left on the filesystem for debugging purposes and to
>> allow access to the build logs, they are not added to the installed index,
>> and as such are not loadable except under old gem_prelude bugs.
> This was why I was suggesting it be solved at the platform level as opposed
> to trying to solve it within the gem itself.
> The idea would be that on platforms with support for native extensions,
> RubyGems would look for gems by platform in the following order:
> 1. A platform-native gem
> 2. The "ruby" platform
> 3. The "pure" platform
> On platforms without native extensions, it'd check for:
> 1. A platform-native gem
> 2. The "pure" platform
> 3. The "ruby" platform (for legacy's sake)
> This would allow tools like Bundler to automatically choose the right set of
> dependencies for a given platform and avoid it ever trying to install gems
> with native extensions at all.

Does this address my earlier issue?




More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list