Trans wrote:
Some months ago we discussed this with regards to libxml. The same applies to libxslt. That is, the name needs to transition to "libxslt", dropping the "-ruby".
Hmm, I suppose we can call the gem that. However, the .so file cannot be called that. I started doing it that way, but what happened is that the gcc linker would grab libxslt.so the bindings instead of libxslt.so the library. And I couldn't stand the libxslt_so.so name, thus back to libxslt_ruby.so which seemed reasonable.
* For all other platforms, I updated extconf.rb to tell gcc that libxslt-ruby depends on libxml-ruby being present. To do this trick, I made a big assumption - that libxml-ruby is installed as a gem. I did this because I couldn't figure out any other way to reliably determine where the libxml-ruby header files were on disk. What do people think o of this?I'll take a peak at it as soon as I finish up what I working on at the moment (in a couple of days).
Sounds good.
Last, the project name on rubyforge is libxsl which is incorrect. It should be libxslt since its wrapping the libxslt library (http://xmlsoft.org/XSLT/). Is it possible to change names?That would require creating a new rubyforge project. Do you think it's worth the transition?
No, not really. But it would be nice to be consistent.As for renaming the gems from libxml-ruby to libxml and libxslt-ruby to libxslt, do you think that's worth it? Seems like it would break upgrading (you'd have libxml-ruby and libxml installed, which one wins?).
Charlie
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
