On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Trans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jul 11, 3:21 pm, "Aaron Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Separate scripts are more intuitive than rake tasks? > > I understand what you thinking, but there are some considerations > involved. The reason we should use scripts rather than the Rakefile > (whether it be via the traditional setup.rb script or through separate > scripts as I have suggested) is because the end-installer ought not > need Rake to preform an installation (Rake is not included in Ruby > 1.8+, btw). Moreover, a rakefile is intended for project maintainers -- > it can have all sorts of maintainer tasks in it, including things like > packaging, uploading, publishing the website, making an announcement, > etc. There's no reason to provide an end user with these functions, > just as some support files are not included in a package. Finally, > setup.rb is not a simple script, and personally I wouldn't want to re- > implement all that as a Rake task (though I have in fact gone down > that path once, only to realize afterward that it was a pointless > affair for the other reasons stated).
IMO, it seems like more work than its worth to support the few people that don't have rake installed. If a user has to make sure that gcc, libxml, libiconv, zlib, ruby, etc are installed, why not rake? -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/ _______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
