Re: Gem::Platform

On Dec 8, 2006, at 08:10 , Grant Hollingworth wrote:
> * Eric Hodel <drbrain-48TerJ1FxhPk1uMJSBkQmQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2006-12-08 
> 01:05]:
>> mswin32 has been outrageously successful, but linux and darwin  
>> less-so.
>
> Linux and Darwin don't have so many special cases.  Or at least  
> they're far more likely to have a compiler.

But not 100% likely.  Tattle will tell us more.

>> I think we'll need a DARWIN_INTEL and DARWIN_UNIVERSAL, a more-
>> generic linux, and ...?
>
> Separating architecture and OS might be a good idea.  And perhaps a  
> distinction between source and binary packages?

If you're going to make this split you'll need arch, platform and  
compiler (for win32).  And it isn't backwards-compatible with the  
existing gems.

> What does a platform of i586-linux mean, exactly?  That it's  
> compiled already?  That it contains assembly that only works on  
> i586?  Special compiler flags?

Just "compiled for linux x86".

-- 
Eric Hodel - drbrain-48TerJ1FxhPk1uMJSBkQmQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - 
http://blog.segment7.net

I LIT YOUR GEM ON FIRE!