From: Joshua Peek <josh@...>
Date: 2010-04-22T10:00:18+09:00
Subject: Re: Proposing a Ruby Packaging Standard

On Apr 20, 3:20 pm, Luis Lavena <luislav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2) "Extensions SHOULD be buildable with ruby extconf.rb; make."
>
> That is not true, there are extension that even using extconf they
> generate Rakefiles, because they depend on mkrf and not mkmf
>
> That can't be enforced on these developers, if done a lot of project
> could break.

I'd like to see mkrf formally spec'd here. I'm not to familiar with
mkrf or know to many gems using it. Do you still use extconf.rb but
require mkrf instead?

Also, whats your opinion on make + copy vs "make install" with
sitearchdir. Both seem to be compatible with all Makefiles generated
with mkmf. The problem with copying is that you have to manually
extract the target_prefix from the Makefile.

http://gist.github.com/373929