From: Joshua Peek on
On Apr 20, 3:20 pm, Luis Lavena <luislav...(a)> wrote:
> 2) "Extensions SHOULD be buildable with ruby extconf.rb; make."
> That is not true, there are extension that even using extconf they
> generate Rakefiles, because they depend on mkrf and not mkmf
> That can't be enforced on these developers, if done a lot of project
> could break.

I'd like to see mkrf formally spec'd here. I'm not to familiar with
mkrf or know to many gems using it. Do you still use extconf.rb but
require mkrf instead?

Also, whats your opinion on make + copy vs "make install" with
sitearchdir. Both seem to be compatible with all Makefiles generated
with mkmf. The problem with copying is that you have to manually
extract the target_prefix from the Makefile.

From: Suraj Kurapati on
Thomas Sawyer wrote:
> Suraj Kurapati wrote:
> Project has since moved to GitHub:

Thanks for the update. For posterity, I suggest
adding a .htaccess to the old RubyForge site thus:

RedirectPermanent /

Posted via

From: Evgeniy Dolzhenko on
How the Config.datadir('$projectname') pattern is supposed to be used
during say a development of a gem?

On Apr 20, 11:27 am, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirc...(a)>
> Hello,
> earlier this month I wrote up a draft for a specification on how to
> structure Ruby projects.  It started at
> and there was lots of discussion there, which I now want to move to
> ruby-talk to gain a larger audience.
> The specification now resides at
> and is generated from
> Please keep discussion on RPS to this thread, so people which usually
> don't follow ruby-talk can discuss too.
> Thank you,
> --
> Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirc...(a)>