From: Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Date: 2009-06-03T09:50:07+09:00
Subject: Re: Rubygems

On Jun 2, 7:02 pm, "J. D." <jdezen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In addition,
>
> I have created a full one-click installer for windows that contains:
>
> Ruby 1.9.1-p129 (ming compiled)
> Gem 1.3.4
> Rails 2.3.2 and all dependencies
> MySql (compiled from binaries)
> Sqlite3 (compiled from binaries)
> Devkit
> .
>
> I'm not sure if anyone could use it or would want to host it.  It's an
> installer.exe through QSetup and updates path variables for the install
> location as well as associates .rb to ruby.
>

While a monolitic setup/installer sounds tempting, I'm against those.

Just to give a quick list of the issues with that:

* It assumes all the users are insterested in all these components.
* It bundles RDoc and RI elements, since it bundles installed gems.
* It includes personalized stub files generated by RubyGems:

If you install Rake, it will generate a stub file for the location
where you installed it.

* Updating individual components is going to be tricky.
For example: move from GCC3 to GCC4 or just one particular DLL.

Another critical point is: who compiled the binaries for Ruby? This is
important since if everybody going to use Ruby on Windows is going to
build it's own Ruby version debugging is going to be impossible.

Of course, all the above points are my personal opinion, and can be
biased since I rather prefer minimalistic and more tailored versions
of the tools I use or develop.

Regards,
--
Luis Lavena