[Rubyinstaller-devel] RE: FXRuby and the (new) Ruby Installer for OS X

Curt Hibbs curt at hibbs.com
Sun Aug 15 03:43:06 EDT 2004

Stephen Steiner wrote:
> > I'd like to make it as simple and foolproof for the end-user as
> > possible,
> > but I suppose that if it is too problematic, FXRuby can be included as
> > a
> > checkbox option, and if the user selects it, then the runtime
> > prerequisites
> > can be clearly displayed (making it the users responsibility). But, if
> > at
> > all possible, I would prefer to avoid that.
> >
> >> I wonder if an alternative approach might be to leverage one of the
> >> existing packaging projects (like Fink, or DarwinPorts) -- try to
> >> ensure that packages are available for all of the Ruby extensions
> >> we're
> >> interested in providing, something like that? Just a thought.
> >
> > Perhaps, what do you think Steve?
> As long as all of the tools we're installing are already compilable on
> OS X, I'd rather build them on the user's machine.  That way they're
> sure that everything matches.  The developer tools are free and I'd
> rather see them install that than dealing with fink or anything else.

My first choice would be for the user not to have to deal with anything
other than our installer. But if that is not possible/practical, then here's
my list of preferences (in descending order):

1) First choice is to be for the installer to be completely self-contained
and not to require anything else to already be installed on his system.

2) Second choice is to partition the stuff to be installed into two groups.
The first group is everything that fits the criteria in #1 above, and the
second group contains the things that require other software to be installed
on the user's system (compilers, libs, etc.). In this case, everything in
the second group should be optional and *not* selected by default.

3) The third choice would be that we require a particular set of software to
be installed on the user's system before our installer can be run.  It would
be hard for me to believe that this would be necessary, and in my mind, this
option is completely unacceptable.


More information about the Rubyinstaller-devel mailing list