On Nov 9, 2007 11:12 PM, Luis Lavena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2007 9:14 PM, Trans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 9, 2007 5:04 PM, Eric Hodel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 2007, at 08:45 , Trans wrote: > > > > > > > Would this suffice for adding a fall back option to Installer? It also > > > > requires that 'extensions_fallback' be added to the gemspec. > > > > > > extconf.rb can be set up to do this already. Check for all your > > > dependencies, and if one of them doesn't exist, generate a Makefile > > > that does nothing. If you fail to compile for some other reason, I > > > think it is too dangerous to automatically fall back. > > > > That doesn't work if there is no make/nmake on the system. Plus, the > > fall back is pure ruby. So if it fails for _any reason_ it would be > > okay --that's the point. It would just give a warning that native > > extension didn't compile, but the library was still usable in pure > > ruby "mode". > > > > The only problem is nmake. make can handle empty makefiles, also nmake > (if present). > > If all the steps you test in extconf.rb fails, you should create > nmake.bat and create the empty makefile. > > I guess that will work... but must validate my idea later (with a > windows machine handy) :)
If you read my prior poists, you would know that's exactly what I did with the current TMail gem. And in no uncertain terms it is a complete *hack*. Nor is it a perfect solution. If nmake or make is not present it still bombs. I would like to know the RubyGems official policy on supporting a pure-ruby version of a library that can also have platform extensions. As far as I can tell, there is no clear policy for this. T. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
