[ruby-core:40928] Re: Fwd: Re: Can rubygems save us from "binary-compatibility hell"?

Hello,

2011/11/11 Luis Lavena <[e-mail]>:
> 1) Most of gem authors do not have Windows.

Surprised.  I thought gem developer must get the platform (or
a contributor who has the platform) if they want to support it.

Ah, I've remembered.  You said using wine for testing.
It is an interesting and challenging project, though I do never
think it is a canonical way...


>> To add support for a new version of Ruby, the extra process is:
>>
>> 7. install the new version of Ruby.
>> 8. build and test your gems by using the already-installed
>> =A0 compiler, libraries and the new Ruby.
>> 9. create and release a new gem package.
>>
>
> You're omitting the issue: a binary gem will be for a single version
> of Ruby because the binary extension was compiled just for the Ruby
> used.

Ah, sorry.

9. create a fat gem package by adding to the old gem a new binary
   for the new version of Ruby, and release it.

I'm not familiar with gem operation, so I'm curious; Is adding a
new binary to gem so difficult?


> Please ready the thread in RubyGems-devel where I explain this problem:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/2009-April/004522.html

I will try...


>> I think this extra process does not change even whether the gem
>> depends on the third party's libraries or not, because they have
>> already installed the libraries.
>
> Windows !=3D your average POSIX OS, most of the time getting the correct
> 3rd party library *or* binaries for Windows is impossible.

You mean windows binaries are rarely provided by the 3rd party,
and gem developer must compile it by themselves, right?

I know it is cumbersome, but isn't it a necessary task to make a
gem that uses the library in windows?  And, I cannot understand
how the difficulty is related with a frequent change of Ruby ABI.
Maybe there is the answer in the RubyGems-devel thread.


Thanks for your explaining patiently and sorry for my ignorance.

--=20
Yusuke Endoh <[e-mail]>