Prev: Problem of share variable in function using thread
Next: save your money and open all blocked sites now
From: David Ainley on 6 Jul 2010 20:04
Ben Bleything wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Ainley <wrinkliez(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I see. �Well I could use that as a last resort I suppose, but won't the
>> user have to download the entire Ruby language and gems and whatnot if I
>> go that route? �Certainly no problem, but it just seems unnecessary.
>
> Yes, that's true. I think your best bet is going to be to figure out
> why crate isn't working... does it give you any more output than you
> pasted above?
>
> Ben

The error is

ERROR: Failed to build gem native extension.

:S

And Charles, that's a good idea. Let me give that a try.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From: David Masover on 6 Jul 2010 21:17
On Tuesday, July 06, 2010 07:04:37 pm David Ainley wrote:
> Ben Bleything wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Ainley <wrinkliez(a)gmail.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> I see. �Well I could use that as a last resort I suppose, but won't the
> >> user have to download the entire Ruby language and gems and whatnot if I
> >> go that route?

Yes. They'll have to do that anyway. All of the solutions here revolve around
making it easier for your users, but you're not likely to save much in terms
of bandwidth or disk space with any of these other approaches, unless I'm
missing something.

> The error is
>
> ERROR: Failed to build gem native extension.

Are you sure that's it? Almost always, that error is followed by a large
amount of text which indicates the actual error.

> And Charles, that's a good idea. Let me give that a try.

I don't know that this is necessarily better. It's a question of whether
they're more likely to have Ruby or Java installed. It might be easier to
manage with the gems, though...

If your target is Linux users, and gems aren't good enough, look at building
debs, RPMs, or whatever your users actually expect. You might be able to
depend on the more popular gems as native packages, and you might combine that
with something like bundler to put anything missing into your package.

Of course, at this point, it might be getting a lot more complicated for you
than a JRuby jar, so I guess that's the advantage.

And of course, build a gem anyway, because that's easy, and because any new
solutions for building Ruby "executables" are likely to revolve around gems.

From: Jeremy Hinegardner on 8 Jul 2010 19:56
On Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 09:04:37AM +0900, David Ainley wrote:
> Ben Bleything wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM, David Ainley <wrinkliez(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I see. ???Well I could use that as a last resort I suppose, but won't the
> >> user have to download the entire Ruby language and gems and whatnot if I
> >> go that route? ???Certainly no problem, but it just seems unnecessary.
> >
> > Yes, that's true. I think your best bet is going to be to figure out
> > why crate isn't working... does it give you any more output than you
> > pasted above?
> >
> > Ben
>
> The error is
>
> ERROR: Failed to build gem native extension.

This is probably a failure in building the amalgalite gem on your
system. Crate itself has no native extensions, but it does depend upon
amalgalite.

With crate, you would still have at least 2 files to ship to your end
user, the executable, and the sqlite database in which all the code
resides.

As the author of crate, I would not currently recommend it for
production use. It has been a while since I worked on it, and it
has not been kept up to date. I will eventually get back to working on
it when I have some copious free time. :-)

enjoy,

-jeremy

--
========================================================================
Jeremy Hinegardner jeremy(a)hinegardner.org


From: Roger Pack on 9 Jul 2010 01:24
Charles Nutter wrote:
> FWIW, you can create a single-file executable (a jar file, basically,
> run with java -jar jarfile.jar) with JRuby that runs anywhere Java's
> installed and doesn't require any per-machine build or any other
> dependencies to be installed (including JRuby itself). Might be an
> easier path, if you're willing to use JRuby.

Are there any step by step instructions on how to do that anywhere, by
chance?
-r
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

From: Roger Pack on 9 Jul 2010 01:25
David Ainley wrote:
> I have a pretty basic .rb script that I would like to turn into an
> executable. What is the best way to do this for Linux? I have no
> intentions of cross compatibility, so I don't care if it won't work for
> Windows or Mac.

This list may help:

http://wiki.github.com/rdp/ruby_tutorials_core/ruby-talk-faq#ruby_to_exe
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Problem of share variable in function using thread
Next: save your money and open all blocked sites now