From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2005-06-05T17:56:01+09:00 Subject: Re: Package, a future replacement for setup.rb and mkmf.rb ES writes: > Le 4/6/2005, "Christian Neukirchen" a �crit: >> >>But now, I'll ask you: Are you satisfied with the way installing Ruby >>extensions and libraries works? Do you think there is a place for >>Package? Do you have further improvements or can provide alternative >>ideas? > > No. setup.rb is OK but inflexible. Package management (gems etc.) > nor build management (Rant, Rake) should not be in any way incorporated > in 'Package', either. Package will not handle dependencies on it's own (You are strongly recommended to check for libraries in the build part, though). Package will not provide general "build management", but does generate instructions how to build extensions. That is, if you before used an extconf.rb, you'll use Package, if you used a custom Rakefile, you'll continue to do so. It would be imaginable that Package could generate Rake tasks dynamically, however, Rake is not (yet?) included in the Ruby standard library. > Might be a good idea to have the extension builder as a completely > separate tool, too. I'll try to make it easy to use outside of Package. > Just a simple, easy packager/setup utility, please! > (I will help, too, if I can!) Thank you, I'll come back on that. > E -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org