From: Stu <ceaser@...>
Date: 2004-12-12T08:27:23+09:00
Subject: Re: iconv replacement for windows?

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004 06:40:20 +0900, Austin Ziegler
<halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:

>At a minimum, the Ruby bindings must be included. If there are
>redistributables (e.g., openssl.dll, iconv.dll) that would be
>beneficial, they should be included but made optional for
>installation.
>
>The point is to have a complete installer for people who would run
>our applications, not just programmers. If not, then we tell people
>on Windows to download and install fifteen things *before they can
>even RUN Ruby*.
>

like i said, I have nothing against loading the installer with
everything under the sun, its a great way to distribute a base
install etc.

and id love to see more binary extensions come with the installer,
for things that are a PITA to build oneself (ala mod_ruby, db drivers,
ncurses, etc).

its easy to say XYZ is in rubygems, and it would be quite easy
for a non-programmer to gem install XYZ.. but do we expect
non-programmers to have compilers installed if they try to
gem install ncurses?? 

the other side of the coin is a base ruby install with nothing else
and some secondary install packs, say ruby-database-1click-installer
or ruby-widgets-1click for gtk/wx/fox/etc, mm im going off on tangents
now...


-- Stu  --
[FAQ] Write Your Own Operating System
    http://www.mega-tokyo.com/osfaq2