On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 22:56:11 +0900, Ruben wrote:

> At Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:36:25 +0900, Curt Hibbs wrote:
> 
> > These are excellent solutions. Unfortunately, they only
> > work for Windows. I'm not aware of anything comparable for
> > Mac or 'nix systems.
> 
> Yep, you are right, it would be interesting to have tools
> similar as Exerb and RubyScript2Exe for Mac, Linux and BSD
> systems. And an installer on those platforms would also be
> nice (maybe Loki installer).

I think it's possible to make a RubyScript2Exe for Linux. Even
cross-compiling (both ways) isn't impossible. Are you really
interested? Would take only a couple of hours... I always
assumed that every Linux distribution comes with Ruby. Maybe
not pre-installed, but at least on CD. So I didn't spend any
time on this issue.

The problem with Linux is how to determine which dependencies
are to be distributed in the binary. On my system (RH8), Ruby
(the core and *.so) needs at least the following files (both
direct and indirect):

 /lib/ld-linux.so.2
 /lib/libNoVersion.so.1
 /lib/libc.so.6
 /lib/libcrypt.so.1
 /lib/libdl.so.2
 /lib/libgcc_s.so.1
 /lib/libm.so.6
 /lib/libnss_files.so.2
 /usr/lib/libgdbm.so.2
 /usr/lib/libncurses.so.5
 /usr/lib/libreadline.so.4

Can I assume that these are available on all modern
distributions, so I only need to distribute /usr/bin/ruby and
/usr/lib/libruby.so.1.6 (besides the "application-specific"
stripped rubylib tree)? What about the versions? Is 1.8 more 
complex? How can I test on several distributions,
cross-distribution? Anybody?

gegroet,
Erik V.