MInimal Ruby Distribution with app

B

bww00amdahl

I'm looking for a minimal distribution of Ruby to distribute my app
with.

Thanks
 
A

Alex Fenton

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
 
J

James Britt

Alex said:
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
 
D

Douglas Livingstone

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
 
G

Guillaume Marcais

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.
 
R

rcoder

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
 
A

Austin Ziegler

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 * (e-mail address removed)
* Alternate: (e-mail address removed)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,766
Messages
2,569,569
Members
45,042
Latest member
icassiem

Latest Threads

Top