From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 10.90.87.14 with SMTP id k14cs1198080agb; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.224.125.76 with SMTP id x12mr8383166qar.208.1262128845381; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:20:45 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from rubyforge.org (rubyforge.org [205.234.109.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 39si19568991qyk.16.2009.12.29.15.20.45; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:20:45 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org designates 205.234.109.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=205.234.109.19; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org designates 205.234.109.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Received: from rubyforge.org (rubyforge.org [127.0.0.1]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 333C51D78883; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:20:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from kuovi.tilus.net (kuovi.tilus.net [80.68.89.168]) by rubyforge.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07ADC16782B6 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2009 18:17:59 -0500 (EST) Received: by kuovi.tilus.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 96A953FCCC; Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:17:59 +0200 (EET) From: Tero Tilus To: sup-talk In-reply-to: <1262035134-sup-4921@zyrg.net> References: <1262035134-sup-4921@zyrg.net> Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 01:17:59 +0200 Message-Id: <1262127955-sup-7589@tilus.net> User-Agent: Sup/git Subject: Re: [sup-talk] xapian-full and ncursesw gems X-BeenThere: sup-talk@rubyforge.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: User & developer discussion of Sup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Errors-To: sup-talk-bounces@rubyforge.org Rich Lane, 2009-12-29 01:12: > ncursesw: This is a version of the ncurses gem modified to link > against the ncursesw library so you get wide character support. Rich rocks! \o/ > The only thing I worry about here is users lacking the full > toolchain required to build Xapian. Doesn't sound bad to me. How tough a requirement "full toolchain required to build Xapian" really is? What platforms would be problematic? > I've kept source compatibility with the old ncurses gem by not > renaming the files/module. This means they interact badly if both > are installed. Thoughts? If you say "don't you dare to require both ncurses and ncursesw" in README and make ncursesw complain if ncurses is already required I'd say it's as good a gem-citizen as it gets. Then just (as William already said) make sup try ncursesw first and fall back to ncurses if it fails. -- Tero Tilus ## 050 3635 235 ## http://tero.tilus.net/ _______________________________________________ sup-talk mailing list sup-talk@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk