On 1/22/07, Marcus Rueckert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2007-01-22 22:09:38 +0700, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > > On 1/22/07, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > mkmf.rb (which is required by extconf.rb) is the place to look to see > > > if you can override Config::CONFIG['INSTALL'], perhaps with an > > > environment variable. It should get passed straight from the gem > > > install command down to the extconf.rb in a subshell. If not, please > > > file a bug on our tracker. > > > > > > > I have looked at it again. Environment variables do not have any > > effect on it. Patching mkmf.rb is not an option to me because then I > > have to rebuild ruby. However I think maybe I can make a wrapper for > > mkmf.rb. Thanks for the idea. > > > > Anyway I still want ability to patch a gem package :) (for more > > difficult cases, I can search bugs.gentoo.org for those if you want > > examples) > > it might be just me ... but fixing the broken mkmf.rb will help with > building normal ruby extensions aswell. gem is just another case. > > do you really prefer patching every single ruby extension instead of one > rebuild of the ruby base package? > > it might be just me ... but that feels stupid. >
I agree with your take on this. Perhaps providing a hook to patch gems is a good thing, but to me this particular problem is a clear cut case of a potential mkmf enhancement---not a patch for gentoo but a patch to be contributed to mkmf in the standard Ruby distribution. As a side note, it would be great to see mkmf chucked out altogether and replace by Rake + mkrf. Maybe that's just me, though. Chad _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
