On Nov 9, 2007, at 20:39 , Austin Ziegler wrote: > On 11/9/07, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Nov 9, 2007, at 16:23 , Trans wrote: >>> Yes. I've reconsidered my position. I think a platform gem is a >>> rather >>> special case. For instance a Windows binary, b/c Windows often lacks >>> the needed compile tools. But on most other systems it seems >>> unccessary. Is that a fair assessment? >> I think so. Most other systems have compilers by default, or a >> compiler can easily be added to them. > > Erm. It's mostly a theoretical at this point, but if I wanted to do > something with Ruby on ESX Server Console (a variant of Red Hat ES 3), > I'd be SOL if I wanted to install an extension gem using the "gem" > command. > > It would be nice to have the ability to do a "gem repack" or something > like that to take a currently installed gem and repack it into a new > deployable gem that could be used locally.
hrm, maybe `gem unpack` plus `gem spec > file` plus `gem build file`. (I didn't verify if those three would work.) -- Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
