To the best of my knowledge, we do not have any dependencies on binary gems at the moment. But even if we did, I don't see why it should be a problem as long as Windows equivalents for those gems exist. I agree that there's an expectation that CC.rb should be as widely compatible as possible. I haven't had a chance to test every platform since the upgrade, but I'm trying to remain true to the spirit of that goal.
But I don't see any good reason for the expectation that a Windows user should be able to check out _the source code_ and immediately run it. If they check out the source code, they can bundle install like any other Ruby developer. If they install it as a gem, then let gem dependencies be handled and installed as per normal. Either case would handle binary gems just fine. But if they just want a dependency-free _binary download_, there's no reason why we can't package a zipfile that includes all dependencies (using bundle install --deployment, for example) and make that available. Such an artifact should be the output of a potential Windows release build. You may have noticed that I haven't checked in a Gemfile.lock either. In case you were wondering why, it's because the last time I tried to use Bundler on a cross-platform project (fairly recently--six months ago or so) it failed to lock down dependencies in a platform-agnostic way. This probably isn't an issue now, because there are no binary gems, and so perhaps we should reconsider. But it would be if there were. Cheers, Brian On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:17 AM, Chad Woolley <[email protected]> wrote: > If we use bundler with packaged gems (which we should, if we aren't), > that's essentially the same as vendoring them, which is what we did > before. > > Agreed on avoiding use of binary gems. Are we using any? If so, we > should use a non-binary equivalent if at all possible. > > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Alexey Verkhovsky > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I do have a rather strong opinion that it should not use binary gems. This >> adds a big barrier to entry, especially on Windoze. >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Alexey Verkhovsky >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Brian: >>> >>> I see you added Gemfile to CC.rb. Not having external dependencies, binary >>> gems etc - this was, in fact, by design. >>> >>> The rationale was that this tool should be easy to install for people who >>> know nothing about Ruby (because it was used on non-Ruby gigs; probably >>> still is). Therefore, it should only require Ruby and nothing else (not even >>> rubygems). Everything else is vendored. >>> >>> I have a tentative (i.e., not extremely convinced) opinion that it better >>> remain this way. >>> >>> --Alex >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Alexey Verkhovsky >> http://alex-verkhovsky.blogspot.com/ >> CruiseControl.rb [http://cruisecontrolrb.thoughtworks.com] >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cruisecontrolrb-developers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-developers >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Cruisecontrolrb-developers mailing list > [email protected] > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-developers > _______________________________________________ Cruisecontrolrb-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/cruisecontrolrb-developers
