[Win32utils-devel] rdoc, ri and gems

win32utils-devel at rubyforge.org win32utils-devel at rubyforge.org
Wed Nov 3 15:10:25 EST 2004


(Sorry if you've gotten more than one copy of this...mail client issues)


Hi.  Not sure if this will make it to the list, but let's see.  Comments
below.

> Hi,
>
> win32utils-devel at rubyforge.org wrote:
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I've been going over the chapters on RDOC and gems lately.  I think we
>>should probably work on making the code in Win32Utils "rdoc" friendly.
>>I've started doing this with 'win32-ipc' as an experiment.
>>
>>
> This is a very good idea !
>
>>This probably means some directory reorganization, because I think gems
>>looks for extensions in an 'ext' directory, whereas we have everything
>>under 'lib' for now.  I'll change that if I have to.  I may also move
>>the 'examples' subdirectory to the toplevel.
>>
>>

Actually rubygems doesn't _require_ that you use the lib and ext
directories this way.  But it's generally thought to be good packaging
etiquette to do so.  You can put an extconf.rb anywhere you like and just
specify it in the "extensions" attribute of the gemspec.  Same goes for
"requirepath".

> During the Conference, Chad and Jim had very patiently explained to me
> the process of creating gems (thanks a lot, Chad, Jim) and Jim has shown
> me how I could use rake to automate the build.
>
> I was planning to put it all together before our next release but the
> thought languished. But I remember Chad mentioning to me that if we have
> a one-click installer then we do not need the gems (and vice-versa).
> Not that it matters though, since we can (and should) always  offer both
> options :-)
> The one-click installer has a slight advantage in that we can put our
> sample/test files in any folder of our choice which is not (yet)
> possible using gems. Or is it?
>

So, based on the above, the advantage you list here is moot.  Generally,
though, if Windows users have a standard Windows installer, the typical
pain of installing libraries goes away, so the advantage of RubyGems is a
little less marked.  It may, however, be easier for someone to automate
the installation of libraries if they're available as RubyGems.  And it's
really easy to upgrade.  I think there's something to be said for having
the same interface for installing as many libraries as once.  For example,
if you wanted to use both BlueCloth and the speech API bindings in the
same program, it's nice to just do:

gem install bluecloth
gem install speech (or whatever it would be called.

All in all, you guys are really creating some good stuff.  Regardless of
what the _best_ solution is, I would be thrilled to see this stuff
installable as gems.

One last thing I left out is that when Curt goes to Gems-based
installation of libs for the one-click installer, having these as Gems
will really help to get you integrated into that project, which would be
great.

Thanks,
Chad



More information about the win32utils-devel mailing list