On Jul 8, 12:03 pm, Charlie Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Yes, that's it a bit of annoyance, and there had been some talk about changing it. "_ruby" is fine, though maybe "_binding" would be more descriptive? > >> * 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. True. I am willing to transition. I suppose if Sean feels it's worth it the we can move forward with it. > 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?). I think it is, b/c it creates consistency across the gem name, the library directory name and the module name. Indeed, there is a potential for library conflict (an example of the weaknesses of Ruby's require system actually). We will just have to make a special emphases to users about this transition. A good way to handle it might be to release as libxml-ruby/libxslt-ruby and then immediately release the same versions as libxml/libxslt in order to facilitate a smooth a transition as possible. T. _______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
