I think I understand the basic difference, but I was mainly commenting
on its conspicuous absence in pickaxe 2.

On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 08:02:41 +0900, Chad Fowler <chadfowler / gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 07:32:05 +0900, Carl Youngblood
> 
> 
> <carl.youngblood / gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was just drooling in anticipation for pickaxe 2 and looking through
> > the table of contents on the pragprog web site.  I know this is
> > probably asking too much considering its recent release, but rpa-base
> > wasn't too far behind ruby-gems in being released, and I believe it is
> > definitely a worthy contender in the ruby package management arena.  I
> > was disappointed to see that it wasn't included in the book, although
> > a whole chapter was devoted to ruby-gems.
> 
> I think the fundamental difference is that RubyGems requires
> developers to package their own software whereas RPA is meant to be a
> repository with a central team doing the packaging.  Most of the
> RubyGems content in the pickaxe is about how to create gems.
> Ultimately, if gems become ubiquitous, it makes the RPA team's
> (Mauricio, that is) job easier, because some thought will have to be
> put into how to make software distributable in this kind of way[1].  I
> see it as a win for everyone.
> 
> Chad (who wrote the rubygems chapter for pickaxe2)
> 
> [1] For an example, check
> http://halostatue.ca/blog/index.cgi/Tech/Ruby/Ruwiki/Deployment.20040902.md
> 
>