From: Jim Freeze <jim@...>
Date: 2005-06-05T08:42:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Package, a future replacement for setup.rb and mkmf.rb

* Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> [2005-06-05 07:59:15 +0900]:

> In Ruby, this would maybe look like that:
> 
>   require 'package'
> 
>   setup {
>     name "Distutils"
>     version "0.1.1"
>     description "Python Module Distribution Utilities"
>     author "Greg Ward"
>     author_email "gward@python.net"
>     url "http://www.python.org/sigs/distutils-sig/"
> 
>     packages ['distutils', 'distutils/command']
>   }

If you have #name(arg) do the same thing as #name=(arg), how
does one get access to the instance variable?

> Package doesn't try to conquer the world, however, it aims to be just
> a tool that would be useful if it was standard and everyone could
> build on due to it's policy-neutrality

> What advantages will Package have over setup.rb and mkmf.rb, as
> they are now?

I find mkmf.rb very useful to create a Makefile when I am building a C wrapper
to some library. Will Package do the same thing, or will mkmf still
be needed?

-- 
Jim Freeze
Theory and practice are the same, in theory. -- Ryan Davis