On 9/23/05, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas / lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:
> On 24/09/05 at 00:07 +0900, Pascal Terjan wrote:
> > > >> Why not? Many Ruby libraries have no non-Ruby code, so there's no
> > > >> difference between a 'binary' and a 'source' version of them. Plus,
> > > >> surely it's possible to mark that (say) openssl-ruby depends on
> > > >> having a C compiler and openssl-dev?  If necessary for policy
> > > >> reasons, mark it as a 'source' rather than a 'binary' package.
> > > > And then people will install a compiler on their server to ease
> > > > exploits ? or remove the compiler after each install ?
> > > Sorry, but that's a red herring as RubyGems already supports precompiled
> > > binary gems.
> > They need to be available for the given distro (with the right lib
> > versions, ...)
> And for the given architectures : i386 m68k sparc alpha powerpc arm
> mips mipsel hppa ia64 s390 for Debian. How are you going to generate
> your gem on those archs ?

I'm not. Repackagers who don't want compilers on systems will.

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca