Chad Fowler <chadfowler / gmail.com> writes:

> I may not have been clear.  I should have said "the fundamental
> difference driving this decision".  My point is that there isn't
> much to explain w.r.t RPA, since it isn't the developer's job to
> create packages with it.  The goal of the RubyGems chapter in the
> pickaxe speaking for myself, at least) is to show Ruby developers a
> repeatable way to create packages that can be easily distributed and
> installed.

If I read correctly, Carl's query is about rpa-base, not RPA.

While it isn't the developer's job to create packages with (or more
correctly for) RPA, it's perfectly fine, and in fact a Good Thing, for
the developer to create packages that are easily distributed and
installed with rpa-base.


Massimiliano


p.s.: Mauricio, still unsure about rpa-names? ;-)