RPA and RubyGems both solve the same problem (automatic installation
of Ruby packages and their dependencies), but they have some
philosophical differences on how the software should work and where
the packages should come from.  It basically comes down to your choice
of which to use.

With RubyGems, a package's author creates a .gem file and uploads it
to RubyForge.  RubyGems installations can then access that .gem file
and use it to install the associated software.

With RPA, installation scripts are managed by a team at RPA (currently
just Mauricio Fernandez, AFAIK) who create the installation scripts
themselves and then offer them from their server.

There are also several differences in the software associated with
each (gem and rpa-base, respetively).  RubyGems installs a gem's files
into their own directory; RPA installs them into Ruby's library
directories.  RPA builds are atomic, meaning that if something goes
wrong, the installation is completely reversed.  RubyGems builds are
not atomic, since the files are installed into a separate directory.

Hope that helps.

Bill Atkins

P.S.  I prefer RPA :)

On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 08:30:39 +0900, James Edward Gray II
<james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
> Having just read the RubyGems chapter in the Pickaxe II, I'm curious
> about how it compares to RPA.  I'm not trying to start a war here, but
> I would like some information about their differences, if someone would
> be so helpful.
> 
> Do they solve the same problem, or am I confused?  Are there
> differences in their design philosophy or fundamental differences in
> their operation?  Do they offer a similar range of packages?  Can both
> be installed and peacefully coexist?  Any thing else I should know
> about either?
> 
> Again, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm just trying to learn more
> about my options.  Thanks.
> 
> James Edward Gray II
> 
>