From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2004-08-28T18:26:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Install to bin dir?

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 12:04:44PM +0900, T. Onoma wrote:
> Hmm...
> 
>   Config::CONFIG["destdir"]
> 
> and not? 
> 
>   Config::CONFIG['bindir']

Oops, clearly CONFIG["bindir"] -- in fact that was my rather laconic
initial draft ("require 'rbconfig'; bindir = Config::CONFIG['bindir']"), 
but I introduced the braino when writing the code above :P

> > If you're following the 'standard' source layout (lib/, bin/, etc),
> > I suggest you use setup.rb from Aoki Minero: that way all you have to
> > do is copy setup.rb into your source dir, period (in most cases at least).
> 
> Is setup.rb considered the "premier" way to do it? Looks like it handles 
> compiling for .so too. Is that right? I wonder if it would be worth turning 
> setup.rb into a rake extension? (And how hard it would be?).

IMHO it's still the most comfortable/best general way to create installers
(not "packages") for Ruby libs/apps; it is also repackager-friendly and
promotes good development practices regarding source code structure.
It handles extensions, data dirs... without any problem. Ruby-land would
be a better place if everybody used setup.rb instead of custom installers.

I would have preferred RubyGems to work as a metadata/dependency layer
on top of setup.rb.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'rake extension': if you
really want to do  rake install, just copying setup.rb into your source
dir and something like

task :install do
  require 'rbconfig'
  ruby = File.join(Config::CONFIG["bindir"], 
                   Config::CONFIG['ruby_install_name']) + Config::CONFIG['EXEEXT']
  #FIXME: possible win32 issue with / vs \
  system "#{ruby} setup.rb" 
end

would do.

-- 
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com