On Jul 11, 4:21 pm, "Aaron Patterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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? That's not the main issue. setup.rb or equivalent is going to be there anyway. why are we going to support two scripts to do the same thing? and if you say, just put it all in the rakefile, what difference does it make? You will just end up coping setup.rb into the rakefile. setup.rb provides features that you maybe not realize, such as alternate configuration and prefix, updates shebang lines, etc. T. _______________________________________________ libxml-devel mailing list libxml-devel@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/libxml-devel
