Home > Archive > Ruby > August 2005 > MInimal Ruby Distribution with app
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
MInimal Ruby Distribution with app
|
|
| bww00amdahl@yahoo.com 2005-08-30, 7:02 pm |
| I'm looking for a minimal distribution of Ruby to distribute my app
with.
Thanks
| |
| Alex Fenton 2005-08-30, 7:02 pm |
| not quite a separate minimal ruby source distribution, but you might
find Rubyscript2exe helpful,
depending
http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.html
This will bundle up a (platform specific) minimum runtime binary +
libraries package.
You can unzip the contents of the minimal bundle to see what's needed,
or run it in place.
alex
bww00amdahl@yahoo.com wrote:
> I'm looking for a minimal distribution of Ruby to distribute my app
> with.
>
> Thanks
>
| |
| James Britt 2005-08-30, 7:02 pm |
| Alex Fenton wrote:
> not quite a separate minimal ruby source distribution, but you might
> find Rubyscript2exe helpful,
> depending
>
> http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.html
>
> This will bundle up a (platform specific) minimum runtime binary +
> libraries package.
> You can unzip the contents of the minimal bundle to see what's needed,
> or run it in place.
Rubyscript2exe is quite nice. As an example, a bundled Nitro
application is ~2,250 kb.
James
--
http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys
| |
|
|
| Vladimir Konrad 2005-08-31, 7:57 am |
| Konstantin Levinski wrote:
> for windows, http://exerb.sourceforge.jp/index.en.html worked nicely
> with my ruby app/wxRuby GUI. Exerb yields a nice standalone ~1 mb .exe
> file which works.
also, the exerb produced executable can be compressed by upx...
| |
| rmt512@gmail.com 2005-08-31, 7:00 pm |
|
Alex Fenton wrote:[color=darkred]
> not quite a separate minimal ruby source distribution, but you might
> find Rubyscript2exe helpful,
> depending
>
> http://www.erikveen.dds.nl/rubyscript2exe/index.html
>
> This will bundle up a (platform specific) minimum runtime binary +
> libraries package.
> You can unzip the contents of the minimal bundle to see what's needed,
> or run it in place.
>
> alex
>
> bww00amdahl@yahoo.com wrote:
| |
| Douglas Livingstone 2005-08-31, 7:00 pm |
| On 8/30/05, Alex Fenton <alex@deleteme.pressure.to> wrote:
> not quite a separate minimal ruby source distribution, but you might
> find Rubyscript2exe helpful,
> depending
>=20
Is there something similar for Mac OS X?
Douglas
| |
|
|
| Romuald Brunet 2005-08-31, 7:00 pm |
| Douglas Livingstone <rampant@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is there something similar for Mac OS X?
Doesn't MacOS X have ruby already bundled in ?
--
Romuald Brunet, ICQ 33033393, http://mog.online.fr
Remplacez nospam par mon prénom pour me contacter par email
| |
| Guillaume Marcais 2005-08-31, 7:00 pm |
| On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 05:51 +0900, Romuald Brunet wrote:
> Douglas Livingstone <rampant@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Doesn't MacOS X have ruby already bundled in ?
>
Yes it does. But it is broken in Tiger and basically needs to be
recompiled and reinstalled to be usable. It is only version 1.6 in the
previous version of MacOS X. The library that you used may not be
installed. Etc.
In short, you might be better off bundling everything, including ruby,
in a click-able application for better result.
Guillaume.
| |
| rcoder 2005-08-31, 7:00 pm |
| This isn't really true -- there are minor configuration problems with
the Tiger build of Ruby, but the only cases they've affected me are
when trying to build and install new extension modules. If you have
your extensions (if any) compiled and ready to go, distributing
Ruby-based applications isn't hard, esp. with tools like Platypus and
Pashua to throw a GUI on top.
The biggest problem I've had with distributing Ruby apps for OS X is
that 10.2 and 10.3 included ruby 1.6 builds, not 1.8 versions, so
binary extensions won't be compatible. You can get away with some
installer-trickery (basically, distributing both 1.6 and 1.8 builds,
and swapping the right one into place at install time) but it's quite a
pain trying to maintain (and test) backwards-compatibility for that old
a version of Ruby.
-rcoder
| |
| Austin Ziegler 2005-08-31, 9:56 pm |
| On 8/31/05, rcoder <rcoder@gmail.com> wrote:
> This isn't really true -- there are minor configuration problems with
> the Tiger build of Ruby, but the only cases they've affected me are
> when trying to build and install new extension modules. If you have
> your extensions (if any) compiled and ready to go, distributing
> Ruby-based applications isn't hard, esp. with tools like Platypus and
> Pashua to throw a GUI on top.
It will also affect you if you're using PDF::Writer because of
endianness issues.
-austin
--=20
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
|
|
|
|
|