There's pretty strong use of "dotnet" in other open source projects, and I think that would be best in case gems ever need to decide between dotnet and mono (which is rare, but could happen).
Cory Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Will Green <w...@hotgazpacho.org> Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:37:51 To: <ironruby-core@rubyforge.org> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems Probably, as it would cover both .NET and Mono. If you look at the JRuby stuff in Ruby Gems, the gems are either "java" or "jruby". We could do "dotnet" and "ironruby", and even "clr", but I think we should standardize on one. My vote is for "dotnet". On Thursday, March 11, 2010, Tomas Matousek <tomas.matou...@microsoft.com> wrote: > Wouldn’t “clr” be better after all? Tomas From: > ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green > Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:47 AM > To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems Then why is > RbConfig['arch'] "universal-.net2.0" and not "universal-.NET2.0"?-- > Will Green > http://hotgazpacho.org/ > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Shri Borde <shri.bo...@microsoft.com> > wrote:The name is spelled as “.NET”, and so "gemname-universal-dotNET" would > read better than just "gemname-universal-dotnet". From: > ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:57 PM > To: ironruby-core > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems Attached is a > new patch I would propose to address the feedback from the Ruby Gems team. I > would love some feedback on it. It is a patch against rev 2463 of trunk of > Ruby Gems source.-- > Will Green > http://hotgazpacho.org/On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Will Green > <w...@hotgazpacho.org> wrote:Based on some work that Shri and I did to figure > this out, I have created and submitted a patch to Ruby Gems to include > support form .Net native > gems: http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=27951&group_id=126&atid=577 As > you can see, I've gotten some push-back from the Ruby Gems team on the > naming of the platform for the gems. The problem is that they don't like the > "." in ".net" (i.e. "universal-.net-2.0"), and have suggested alternatives > such as "dotnet", "dotNet", and "Net". I have asked for clarification on > their position. If I understand the Gem::Platform class correctly, the > initialize method takes in the values read from RbConfig, and performs some > translation to come up with a Gem platform name. So, without any changes to > IronRuby itself, we could have gems with names like > "iron-term-ansicolor-universal-dotnet". Of course, it would require a small > tweak to the version of Ruby Gems that is distributed with IronRuby, but the > change is very minor. So, does anyone object to .Net native gems > like: "gemname-universal-dotnet""gemname-universal-dotnet-2.0""gemname-universal-dotnet-4.0" I > think this would get the patch accepted more quickly. Is this kosher with > LCA, or even something that needs to be brought to their attention?-- > Will Green > http://hotgazpacho.org/On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Jim Deville > <jdevi...@microsoft.com> wrote:I’m also wondering what will happen if you put > the gem on two different gem servers (if that is possible, like g -- -- Will Green http://hotgazpacho.org/ _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
