Right, thats what it is planned, both rpa *and* the
system package mananger can deal with it so you could
deisntall/install either way. The rpa-base would still
be needed. Rpa-base would be more of an interface when
using it combined. I am sure you could use a
generation program and generate lets just say..
FreeBSD ports to send. That would work also, but it
would be a pain to make sure that they are working. If
you made rpa a req' to install software it would be
much easier since it handles all the ruby
install/compile stuff :).

--- Ruben <Ruben.Vandeginste / cs.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:

> 
> At Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:13:01 +0900,
> David Ross wrote:
> 
> > The system package manager and rpa base can live
> next
> > to each other. Rpa-base won't install if the files
> are
> > already there, but the system package manger might
> > even  though the file exists. :) Ex. FreeBSD
> ports, it
> > doesnt check wether files exist before installing,
> a
> > package manager design flaw. :/ I live with it
> though
> > :) System package managers handle thier own ports.
> > Sometime in the future Rpa-base will be able to
> > integrate with the system package manager.
> Hopefully
> > the OS distributors like FreeBSD, Debian, and
> Gentoo
> > will accept over 100 port entries to be added and
> get
> > rid of the existing ruby ports since they usually
> are
> > not updated.
> 
> I am rather reluctant about installing files that
> the native package
> manager doesn't know about (unless they can be
> installed in a seperate
> place). But it'd be nice if it can be integrated
> somehow with the
> system package manager.
> 
> Ruben
> 
> 

----------------------------------------
-- Name: David Ross
-- Phone: 865.539.3798
-- Email: drossruby [at] yahoo [dot] com
----------------------------------------


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail