Asp Forum - Creating binary gems, from source gems

Patrick Hurley

3/4/2007 9:47:00 PM

So here is my question:

Is there an easy (read automated) way to take a gem (that requires a
binary compilation) from a properly configured development/build
machine and create a binary gem?

I have production servers that will not include a C/C++ compiler or
other development tools -- I would like to use gems for my packaging
and deployment. I can of course do this by hand, but it seems like a
common enough task (or will be as ruby pushes more and more into the
mainstream), that others may have already encountered (and solved)
this problem.

If not would this feature be a welcome patch to gem? (or is it already
there and I did not see it)
Thanks
pth

31 Answers

Andrealphus

7/30/2007 1:58:00 AM

In News 4xbri.13046$B25.8990@news01.roc.ny,, Vandar at vandar69@yahoo.com,
typed this:

> Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>
>> "Go Mavs" <Mav@ericks.com> wrote in message
>> news:Euari.724$yg1.492@trnddc04...
>>
>>> Interesting read... and no no, I am not taking any thing away from
>>> Bush. There are 10 million post dedicated to him on USENET, mostly
>>> by one user, but yeah...
>>>
>>> Enjoy the read.. and I dare the democrats in here to actually
>>> challenge the material instead of ending their post with a
>>> ridiculous one liner.
>>
>>
>> There's nothing to challenge, towel boy. It's nothing more than a
>> factual account of the events that unfolded during that time. Many
>> of us here are old enough to remember that time very well. You, on
>> the other hand, probably didn't have any hair on your balls and even
>> if you did were probably spending most of your time jacking off in
>> the closet rather than listening to the news.
>>
>> The only thing that matters is whether or not Clinton did anything
>> that would have warranted removal from office. Obviously he didn't,
>> but Republicans decided to engage in a partisan attack anyway and in
>> doing so they forever tarnished whatever little respectability their
>> party had. If you had any sense, you might want to try and pretend
>> those events never happened. It wasn't a bright spot in the history
>> of the Republican party.
>
> It wasn't a bright spot for American politics as a whole, but I would
> say that the party who is most damaged by the impeachment of a
> President is the party that President belongs to.

That doesn't seem to be the case in Clinton's case.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/1...

"Sixty-two percent of all Americans and 55 percent of likely voters say they
are opposed to impeachment, while 55 percent of Americans disapprove of how
congressional Republicans have been handling the Lewinsky scandal, the
survey suggests. Clinton's job approval rating, at 65 percent, shows no sign
of slippage. "

Go Mavs

7/30/2007 2:13:00 AM

"Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:Cibri.1078$vW.831@trnddc08...
> "Go Mavs" <Mav@ericks.com> wrote in message
> news:Euari.724$yg1.492@trnddc04...
>>
>> Interesting read... and no no, I am not taking any thing away from Bush.
>> There are 10 million post dedicated to him on USENET, mostly by one user,
>> but yeah...
>>
>> Enjoy the read.. and I dare the democrats in here to actually challenge
>> the material instead of ending their post with a ridiculous one liner.
>
> There's nothing to challenge, towel boy.

I rest my case. It is okay for Clinton to lie to grand juries, try to hamper
justice and other said things but Bush gets blamed for everything. Funny
enough.

Vandar

7/30/2007 2:14:00 AM

Andrealphus wrote:

> In News 4xbri.13046$B25.8990@news01.roc.ny,, Vandar at vandar69@yahoo.com,
> typed this:
>
>
>>Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Go Mavs" <Mav@ericks.com> wrote in message
>>>news:Euari.724$yg1.492@trnddc04...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Interesting read... and no no, I am not taking any thing away from
>>>>Bush. There are 10 million post dedicated to him on USENET, mostly
>>>>by one user, but yeah...
>>>>
>>>>Enjoy the read.. and I dare the democrats in here to actually
>>>>challenge the material instead of ending their post with a
>>>>ridiculous one liner.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's nothing to challenge, towel boy. It's nothing more than a
>>>factual account of the events that unfolded during that time. Many
>>>of us here are old enough to remember that time very well. You, on
>>>the other hand, probably didn't have any hair on your balls and even
>>>if you did were probably spending most of your time jacking off in
>>>the closet rather than listening to the news.
>>>
>>>The only thing that matters is whether or not Clinton did anything
>>>that would have warranted removal from office. Obviously he didn't,
>>>but Republicans decided to engage in a partisan attack anyway and in
>>>doing so they forever tarnished whatever little respectability their
>>>party had. If you had any sense, you might want to try and pretend
>>>those events never happened. It wasn't a bright spot in the history
>>>of the Republican party.
>>
>>It wasn't a bright spot for American politics as a whole, but I would
>>say that the party who is most damaged by the impeachment of a
>>President is the party that President belongs to.
>
>
> That doesn't seem to be the case in Clinton's case.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/1...
>
> "Sixty-two percent of all Americans and 55 percent of likely voters say they
> are opposed to impeachment, while 55 percent of Americans disapprove of how
> congressional Republicans have been handling the Lewinsky scandal, the
> survey suggests. Clinton's job approval rating, at 65 percent, shows no sign
> of slippage. "

Great... a poll, and this one was conducted on a whopping 461 "likely
voters". A very accurate gauge of what 300,000,000 people think, I'm sure.

SgtMinor

7/30/2007 2:37:00 AM

Vandar wrote:

> Andrealphus wrote:
>
>> In News 4xbri.13046$B25.8990@news01.roc.ny,, Vandar at
>> vandar69@yahoo.com, typed this:
>>
>>
>>> Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Go Mavs" <Mav@ericks.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Euari.724$yg1.492@trnddc04...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting read... and no no, I am not taking any thing away from
>>>>> Bush. There are 10 million post dedicated to him on USENET, mostly
>>>>> by one user, but yeah...
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy the read.. and I dare the democrats in here to actually
>>>>> challenge the material instead of ending their post with a
>>>>> ridiculous one liner.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing to challenge, towel boy. It's nothing more than a
>>>> factual account of the events that unfolded during that time. Many
>>>> of us here are old enough to remember that time very well. You, on
>>>> the other hand, probably didn't have any hair on your balls and even
>>>> if you did were probably spending most of your time jacking off in
>>>> the closet rather than listening to the news.
>>>>
>>>> The only thing that matters is whether or not Clinton did anything
>>>> that would have warranted removal from office. Obviously he didn't,
>>>> but Republicans decided to engage in a partisan attack anyway and in
>>>> doing so they forever tarnished whatever little respectability their
>>>> party had. If you had any sense, you might want to try and pretend
>>>> those events never happened. It wasn't a bright spot in the history
>>>> of the Republican party.
>>>
>>>
>>> It wasn't a bright spot for American politics as a whole, but I would
>>> say that the party who is most damaged by the impeachment of a
>>> President is the party that President belongs to.
>>
>>
>>
>> That doesn't seem to be the case in Clinton's case.
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/1...
>>
>> "Sixty-two percent of all Americans and 55 percent of likely voters
>> say they are opposed to impeachment, while 55 percent of Americans
>> disapprove of how congressional Republicans have been handling the
>> Lewinsky scandal, the survey suggests. Clinton's job approval rating,
>> at 65 percent, shows no sign of slippage. "
>
>
> Great... a poll, and this one was conducted on a whopping 461 "likely
> voters". A very accurate gauge of what 300,000,000 people think, I'm sure.
>

461 likely voters is a large enough sample. In 95% of the time a sample
of that size would yield figures that are within 4.5% of the actual
values, thus from 57.5% to 66.5% for approval and 50.5 to 59.5%
disapproval. Population size is irrelevant to the statistics in this case.

Vandar

7/30/2007 3:17:00 AM

SgtMinor wrote:

> Vandar wrote:
>
>> Andrealphus wrote:
>>
>>> In News 4xbri.13046$B25.8990@news01.roc.ny,, Vandar at
>>> vandar69@yahoo.com, typed this:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nebuchadnezzar II wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Go Mavs" <Mav@ericks.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Euari.724$yg1.492@trnddc04...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting read... and no no, I am not taking any thing away from
>>>>>> Bush. There are 10 million post dedicated to him on USENET, mostly
>>>>>> by one user, but yeah...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Enjoy the read.. and I dare the democrats in here to actually
>>>>>> challenge the material instead of ending their post with a
>>>>>> ridiculous one liner.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's nothing to challenge, towel boy. It's nothing more than a
>>>>> factual account of the events that unfolded during that time. Many
>>>>> of us here are old enough to remember that time very well. You, on
>>>>> the other hand, probably didn't have any hair on your balls and even
>>>>> if you did were probably spending most of your time jacking off in
>>>>> the closet rather than listening to the news.
>>>>>
>>>>> The only thing that matters is whether or not Clinton did anything
>>>>> that would have warranted removal from office. Obviously he didn't,
>>>>> but Republicans decided to engage in a partisan attack anyway and in
>>>>> doing so they forever tarnished whatever little respectability their
>>>>> party had. If you had any sense, you might want to try and pretend
>>>>> those events never happened. It wasn't a bright spot in the history
>>>>> of the Republican party.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't a bright spot for American politics as a whole, but I would
>>>> say that the party who is most damaged by the impeachment of a
>>>> President is the party that President belongs to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't seem to be the case in Clinton's case.
>>>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/1...
>>>
>>> "Sixty-two percent of all Americans and 55 percent of likely voters
>>> say they are opposed to impeachment, while 55 percent of Americans
>>> disapprove of how congressional Republicans have been handling the
>>> Lewinsky scandal, the survey suggests. Clinton's job approval rating,
>>> at 65 percent, shows no sign of slippage. "
>>
>>
>>
>> Great... a poll, and this one was conducted on a whopping 461 "likely
>> voters". A very accurate gauge of what 300,000,000 people think, I'm
>> sure.
>>
>
> 461 likely voters is a large enough sample.

Large enough to determine what those 461 likely voters think.

> In 95% of the time a sample
> of that size would yield figures that are within 4.5% of the actual
> values, thus from 57.5% to 66.5% for approval and 50.5 to 59.5%
> disapproval. Population size is irrelevant to the statistics in this case.

All polls are irrelevant. They are indicative of nothing more than the
opinions of those polled.

Click

7/30/2007 3:38:00 AM

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:14:04 GMT, Vandar
<vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>> "Sixty-two percent of all Americans and 55 percent of likely voters say they
>> are opposed to impeachment, while 55 percent of Americans disapprove of how
>> congressional Republicans have been handling the Lewinsky scandal, the
>> survey suggests. Clinton's job approval rating, at 65 percent, shows no sign
>> of slippage. "
>
>Great... a poll, and this one was conducted on a whopping 461 "likely
>voters". A very accurate gauge of what 300,000,000 people think, I'm sure.

Ah, the last refuge of the ass-kicked----"them polls
ain't no good..." whine

If them "polls ain't no good"---why is it that
conservatives and democrats ALL hire them done?

Or perhaps you're too used to Faux Snooze's "opinion"
polls

Look up "Statistical sampling" and get back to us as to
whether or not they are scientifically acceptable.

Click

7/30/2007 3:39:00 AM

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:37:05 -0400, SgtMinor
<Sarge@the.old.folks.home.invalid> wrote:

>Vandar wrote:

>> Great... a poll, and this one was conducted on a whopping 461 "likely
>> voters". A very accurate gauge of what 300,000,000 people think, I'm sure.
>>
>
>461 likely voters is a large enough sample. In 95% of the time a sample
>of that size would yield figures that are within 4.5% of the actual
>values, thus from 57.5% to 66.5% for approval and 50.5 to 59.5%
>disapproval. Population size is irrelevant to the statistics in this case.

The minute he whined about "461 voters" I knew he was
limited by Rev Moon or Bill O'really.

Click

7/30/2007 3:40:00 AM

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:13:16 GMT, "Go Mavs"
<Mav@ericks.com> wrote:

>
>"Nebuchadnezzar II" <Nebuchadnezzar@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:Cibri.1078$vW.831@trnddc08...
>> "Go Mavs" <Mav@ericks.com> wrote in message
>> news:Euari.724$yg1.492@trnddc04...
>>>
>>> Interesting read... and no no, I am not taking any thing away from Bush.
>>> There are 10 million post dedicated to him on USENET, mostly by one user,
>>> but yeah...
>>>
>>> Enjoy the read.. and I dare the democrats in here to actually challenge
>>> the material instead of ending their post with a ridiculous one liner.
>>
>> There's nothing to challenge, towel boy.
>
>I rest my case. It is okay for Clinton to lie to grand juries, try to hamper
>justice and other said things but Bush gets blamed for everything. Funny
>enough.

Unfortunatly for YOU----he didn't

And You cannot post a single credible shred of evidence
that he did

not then

not now

Vandar

7/30/2007 4:22:00 AM

Click@Knicklas.com wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:14:04 GMT, Vandar
> <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>"Sixty-two percent of all Americans and 55 percent of likely voters say they
>>>are opposed to impeachment, while 55 percent of Americans disapprove of how
>>>congressional Republicans have been handling the Lewinsky scandal, the
>>>survey suggests. Clinton's job approval rating, at 65 percent, shows no sign
>>>of slippage. "
>>
>>Great... a poll, and this one was conducted on a whopping 461 "likely
>>voters". A very accurate gauge of what 300,000,000 people think, I'm sure.
>
>
> Ah, the last refuge of the ass-kicked----"them polls
> ain't no good..." whine

I've never placed any value on any poll and I never will. They are useless.

> If them "polls ain't no good"---why is it that
> conservatives and democrats ALL hire them done?

Because they seek justification for what they want to do.

> Or perhaps you're too used to Faux Snooze's "opinion"
> polls

I don't watch Fox.

> Look up "Statistical sampling" and get back to us as to
> whether or not they are scientifically acceptable.

I know about statistical sampling. That's why I place no value on polls.

George Grapman

7/30/2007 4:55:00 AM

I never thought they wanted Clinton removed as Gore would then have
run as an incumbent, they wanted a damaged president.

comp.lang.ruby

Creating binary gems, from source gems

Patrick Hurley

Andrealphus

Go Mavs

Vandar

SgtMinor

Vandar

Click

Click

Click

Vandar

George Grapman

x Login to ForumsZone