[Rubyinstaller-devel] Re: FXRuby and the (new) Ruby Installer for
ssteiner at mac.com
Sun Aug 15 15:02:54 EDT 2004
> 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
> my list of preferences (in descending order):
> 1) First choice is to be for the installer to be completely
> and not to require anything else to already be installed on his system.
So, basically, ship a bin only distribution?
I was thinking of distributing everything with source code and, if
that's the case,
all they would have to install is the free developer tools that came
with their system.
Then we leverage those tools to build everything else.
I'd be pretty surprised if there are too many people running OS X and
(or wanting to use) Ruby that don't have the developer tools already
I suppose we could just go look for the developer tools and ask, if
they have them,
how they want to proceed.
Personally, I would much rather build from source for the user's
than risk potential version mismatches with a pre-built binary.
More information about the Rubyinstaller-devel