On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Mat Schaffer wrote:
> On Jun 20, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> > It's not a magic bullet, it is an alternative to Make, which is
> > how I am trying to use it. Having decided to use it, I'd like
> > to use it effectively.
> > And having read the existing Makefile, converting it to Windows
> > whilst keeping it compatible would be a pain. I also aim NOT to
> > break anything. Adding a Rakefile for used instead of a Makefile
> > leaves existing infrastructure intact. This seems to follow "first,
> > do no harm".
>
> Okay, now I see what you're trying to do.
>
> Have you considered repackaging glark as a gem? You should be able
Yes, it's been considered. But Jeff hasn't decided to do this yet,
and it's his project. I think that would be too big a change to
contribute at the moment, and...
> to do it with just a Rakefile. The downside is that automagic gem
...to do that I'd still want to use rake effectively, so I'd need be
able to find out about these tasks that I can't see links to.
> creation tools (e.g., hoe) usually assume a different directory
> structure than what's in the glark package. Tough to say how much
So I DO still need to know what tools exist to help me make this
platform agnostic.
> magic you can squeeze out of it without disturbing the directory
> structure.
>
> But see if Jeff is interested in using rubygems to install. If so,
> the new gem file would work on any platform that had rubygems
> available (The common windows ruby installer has it pre-bundled).
> -Mat
That's a selling point, but I'd still be inflicting the learning
curve on him. And gems assumes some fluency in Rake, which is
what my question was about.
Hugh
_______________________________________________
Rake-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rake-devel
