On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 09:26:39 -0500, Sam Roberts <sroberts / uniserve.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Cool that you did this, but I'd like to make a request...
> 
> What I think would be really, really useful, more than the dmg itself,
> is if you posted the steps you used to build the .dmg, so that anybody
> could remake it.
> 
> Maybe you could do a write up on
> 
>   http://www.rubygarden.org/ruby?RubyOnMacintosh
> 
> Is the process automatable? If so, perhaps I (or somebody) could
> set something up to have nightly/weekly ruby snapshots built into
> dmgs, and the various stable versions archived.

Last time I posted a package, it wasn't automated at all, and someone
asked the same question... Well, now my process is partially
automated; downloading, building, and sorting of the installed files
is automated, packaging is not. Packaging is the most important part
for automation, afaic. I need to research making packages via non-gui
tools, which may or may not be fairly complicated. I'll have to see.

Sticking the products in a disk image could be automated easily;
unless you want to design how it will be presented in the Finder, with
background images, icon placement, etc. That would be more involved.

I'm a bit afraid to invest too much time working on this; the
OneClickInstaller project seems to be moving ahead on the mac
platform, and it will definitely supersede my efforts :) So, at the
moment, I haven't been working much on this project. If you want, I
could clean up the code a bit and post it somewhere, but it's really
pretty simple at this point.

> Speaking of which, are there nightly builds/tests of ruby done anywhere?
> I've a farm of build machines at work (many dozens of OS versions and
> architectures). They might let me set up daily builds for ruby, if the
> tests don't take up too much cpu time.
> 
> One reason that it would be nice to know how to make these, is I don't
> want the choice of which ruby to be based on the path, I use the
> 
>   --program-transform-name=PROGRAM
> 
> option to ruby's configure to add a suffix to all the installed ruby
> executables, so irb18 is from ruby 1.8, etc.

I'd like that myself... is it possible, then, to have both ruby 1.9 
and ruby 1.8 installed in the same prefix? I haven't looked into this
much (okay, not at all)

cheers,
Mark