Thanks a lot for pushing on this!
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2010 3:45 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
FYI, my patch to
s for pushing on this!
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:19 PM
To: ironruby-core
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Updated my patch to Ruby Gems to mat
Sounds great. Thanks for pushing on this!
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 7:19 PM
To: ironruby-core
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Updated my patch to
Updated my patch to Ruby Gems to match on "universal-dotnetX.X", where X.X
is the version number.
This will allow for the creation of .NET-specific gems with names like:
- gemname-dotnet
- gemname-dotnet-2.0
- gemname-dotnet-4.0
- gemname-universal-dotnet
- gemname-universal-dotnet-2.0
- gemname-u
I don't care either way as long as it's lower-case
On Thursday, March 11, 2010, Orion Edwards wrote:
>>> The name is spelled as “.NET”, and so "gemname-universal-dotNET" would read
>>> better than just "gemname-universal-dotnet".
>
>
> dotNET looks awful. Microsoft are well known for terrible ma
>> The name is spelled as “.NET”, and so "gemname-universal-dotNET" would
read better than just "gemname-universal-dotnet".
dotNET looks awful. Microsoft are well known for terrible marketing and
terrible naming, so I'd argue that "use the correct spelling" is an
anti-feature :-)
Personally, I
reen
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:37:51
To:
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Probably, as it would cover both .NET and Mono.
If you look at the JRuby stuff in Ruby Gems, the gems are either
"java" or "jruby". We could do "dotnet" and &quo
ri Borde
> wrote:The name is spelled as “.NET”, and so "gemname-universal-dotNET" would
> read better than just "gemname-universal-dotnet". From:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
> [mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
> S
-dotnet4.0”
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Tomas Matousek
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 9:11 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Wouldn’t “clr” be better after all
] IronRuby version of existing gems
Wouldn’t “clr” be better after all?
Tomas
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:47 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core
Wouldn’t “clr” be better after all?
Tomas
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 8:47 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Then
y-core@rubyforge.org
> Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
>
> ___
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
>
> _
ead better than just "gemname-universal-dotnet".
>
>
>
> *From:* ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Will Green
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:57 PM
>
> *To:* ironruby-core
> *Subject:* Re: [Ironr
Yes, but those of us on case-sensitive operating systems prefer all lower case,
if possible.
Cory
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: Shri Borde
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:45:50
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version
PM
To: ironruby-core
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Attached is a new patch I would propose to address the feedback from the Ruby
Gems team. I would love some feedback on it.
It is a patch against rev 2463 of trunk of Ruby Gems source.
--
Will Green
http://hotgazpacho.
happen if you put the gem on two different
>> gem servers (if that is possible, like github and rubyforge). Does gem
>> attempt all sources to find the most specific? Or does it go with the most
>> specific gem from the first source?
>>
>>
>>
>> JD
>>
Or does it go with the most specific
> gem from the first source?
>
>
>
> JD
>
>
>
> *From:* ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Shri Borde
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 07, 2010 6:53 PM
>
> *To:* ironr
...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Shri Borde
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 6:53 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Will, could you recreate the universal-.net gem again and push it? I think it
might have
: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Shri Borde
Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 2:27 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
My guess is that RubyGems tries to look for an exact platform
-core
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Thanks, Daniele!
I've got three version of iron-term-ansicolor out there on RubyGems.org:
* iron-term-ansicolor-0.0.3 (gemspec.platform="ruby")
* iron-term-ansicolor-0.0.3
Thanks, Daniele!
I've got three version of iron-term-ansicolor out there on RubyGems.org:
- iron-term-ansicolor-0.0.3 (gemspec.platform="ruby")
- iron-term-ansicolor-0.0.3-universal-.net
(gemspec.platform="universal-.net")
- iron-term-ansicolor-0.0.3-universal-.n
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 08:07, Will Green wrote:
> I would appreciate if someone running the latest from git would try
> ir -S gem install iron-term-ansicolor
> on both the .Net 2 and the .Net 4 runtimes, and let me know which gem gets
> installed.
C:\Users\nrk\Repositories\ironruby\Merlin\Main\b
underlying CPU and OS. This is what
> RUBY_PLATFORM is used for – behavior of certain APIs like fork, etc,
> process, files, etc. might be different/unavailable on different platforms.
>
>
>
>
> Is that correct?
>
> Tomas
>
>
>
> *From:* ironruby-core-boun...@
orge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
See http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/20#platform
Basically, most gems contain pure Ruby code. Some gems contain C (or
Java, or now possibly C#) code that gets compiled at gem install
time. Some gems even inclu
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org]
on behalf of Will Green [w...@hotgazpacho.org]
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:46 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
I may not fully u
y-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-
boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:46 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
I may not fully understand the Gem process here, so please pardon
-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 9:46 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
I may not fully understand the Gem process here, so please pardon any ignorance.
As I understand it, the ability
y-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Will Green
> *Sent:* Friday, March 05, 2010 8:11 AM
>
> *To:* ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
>
>
>
> I'd have to talk to
a courtesy heads-up…
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 8:11 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
I'd have to talk to Luis L
ORM set to “x86-mswin32” (on
> Windows) since many apps check for “mswin32” in RUBY_PLATFORM to check if
> they are running on Windows. We considered *appending* “.net” and setting
> RUBY_PLATFORM to “.net-mswin32” or “x86-mswin32/.net” to indicate that it
> was not MRI, but decided agai
...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 7:08 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Cool beans!
I noticed in the latest push that a change was made to Ruby Gems itself:
http://github.com/ironruby/ironruby/commit
-mswin32/.net” to indicate that it
> was not MRI, but decided against it as you can always check RUBY_ENGINE to
> detect if you are running on IronRuby.
>
>
>
> *From:* ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org [mailto:
> ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Will Green
> *S
ndicate that it was
not MRI, but decided against it as you can always check RUBY_ENGINE to detect
if you are running on IronRuby.
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:52 AM
To: ironruby-
(click on the function names)
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Shri Borde
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 6:31 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
Does anyone know if
Borde
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:05 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
I will set RUBY_PLATFORM to “.net” and RbConfig::CONFIG[“arch”] to
“universal-.net-2.0” (or “universal-.net-4.0” for the .NET 4 builds)
From: ironruby
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
we need to update rbconfig. it should also detect the runtime correctly
---
Met vriendelijke groeten - Best regards - Salutations
Ivan Porto Carrero
Web: http://whiterabbitconsulting.eu - http
t keying off of RUBY_PLATFORM and other constants?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: Shri Borde
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:55 AM
>> To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Ironru
gt; Will Green
> http://hotgazpacho.org/
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jim Deville wrote:
>
>> Isn't that just keying off of RUBY_PLATFORM and other constants?
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From: Shri Borde
>> Se
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Jim Deville wrote:
> Isn't that just keying off of RUBY_PLATFORM and other constants?
>
>
>
> --
> From: Shri Borde
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:55 AM
> To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
&
Isn't that just keying off of RUBY_PLATFORM and other constants?
From: Shri Borde
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:55 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
It does seem like there isn’t a w
ms"
=> true
irb(main):002:0> Gem::Platform.local()
=> #
From: ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org
[mailto:ironruby-core-boun...@rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Will Green
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:52 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby ve
re-boun...@rubyforge.org] *On Behalf Of *Shri Borde
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:02 AM
> *To:* ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
> *Subject:* [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
>
>
>
> This brings a question to mind - what should the general approach be fo
Behalf Of Shri Borde
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:02 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: [Ironruby-core] IronRuby version of existing gems
This brings a question to mind - what should the general approach be for
porting existing gems to IronRuby? There could be two possible approaches
This brings a question to mind - what should the general approach be for
porting existing gems to IronRuby? There could be two possible approaches:
1. Create a gem with the same name (“win32console” in this case), and
specify platform==”ironruby”. That way, dependent gems do not need to be
44 matches
Mail list logo
