From: ES <ruby-ml@...>
Date: 2005-06-06T03:37:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Package, a future replacement for setup.rb and mkmf.rb


Le 5/6/2005, "Christian Neukirchen" <chneukirchen@gmail.com> a �crit:
>ES <ruby-ml@magical-cat.org> writes:
>
>> Le 4/6/2005, "Christian Neukirchen" <chneukirchen@gmail.com> a �crit:

Re: naming. Since 'Package', as mentioned, may be ever so slightly
misleading, perhaps call it 'Kit' or something? If you want to get
fancier, my pick for my own package manager (whenever I got around
to it) was 'Oblong' (extra points for the reference).

>>>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.

Just let me know what you need done.

>> E
>
>Christian Neukirchen 

E

--
template<typename duck>
void quack(duck& d) { d.quack(); }