From: Tanner Burson Date: 2006-07-20T06:38:00+09:00 Subject: Re: One-Click Installer: MinGW? or VC2005? ------=_Part_92957_4369268.1153345074718 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 7/19/06, Simon Kr=F6ger wrote: > > Curt Hibbs wrote: > > > > Its more likely that the one-click installer would continue to be a > binary > > distribution (with binary extensions), but with an compiler toolchain > that > > allows users to build additional extensions from source or, even better= , > > provides a known target RubyGems packagers to create gems that require > > compilation. > > > > Curt > > I'm just curious, why would you distribute binaries if you have to provid= e > the compiler toolchain anyway? Install time, and consistency, and package size come to mind. I can drop the One Click on an older machine and have a ruby app running in a matter o= f minutes. If I was to have to compile ruby, all the extensions included in the one click (which would also mean having the headers for openssl, mysql, tk, and all the other great things that are included), I'd never get the thing installed on an older machine. Binaries aren't going to go away, but this DOES allow for some of the more aggressive extensions, ruby2c, ruby-inline, ruby2extension, AND it allows the distributors of those packages to be able to target a specific compiler/toolchain for windows. (if we had a build farm, that would be another story) > > cheers > > Simon > > > --=20 =3D=3D=3DTanner Burson=3D=3D=3D tanner.burson@gmail.com http://tannerburson.com <---Might even work one day... ------=_Part_92957_4369268.1153345074718--