On Jan 17, 2012, at 5:38 PM, Ryan Davis wrote: > On Jan 17, 2012, at 16:13 , Luis Lavena wrote: >> That leaves out gems with native dependencies like qtbindings. >> >> QT is massive and to ask users to compile it to be able to install it >> on Windows is very problematic. >> >> qtbindings pre-compiled for Windows weight ~43MB, the limit you >> comment will block them from publishing gems. >> >> There are other gems with pre-compiled bindings like qtbindings or >> gtk2 (12MB) out. > > Maybe we should have a second gem source that doesn't have this restriction > but isn't run by rubycentral and is sponsored by someone else (even if just > by bandwidth)? > > After seeing a number of exponentially growing projects I do think > _something_ needs to be done. My insistence on using hand checked manifests > will only go so far. :P
Four of the exponential growth gems have been traced back to jeweler not cleaning the pkg/ dir before building gems and building out of the source directory, not a copy in the pkg/ directory. I filed the following issue: https://github.com/technicalpickles/jeweler/issues/216 actionpack-2.3.6 had a similar issue where test/tmp was not cleaned before packaging resulting in a 17MB gem. I will double check the package code to ensure that only files listed in the spec are added to a packaged gem which should limit this problem, provided the build-tool authors do the right thing. _______________________________________________ RubyGems-Developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems RubyGems-Developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
