On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 06:03:06AM +0900, Michael DeHaan wrote:
> "When you include a library into
> the base, it is diifucult giving out version changes unless you wish to
> override and break other programs."
> 
> I disagree here.   CPAN.pm has been working seamlessly for many years.
>   It's even self upgradeable.  You can even update modules in the base
> distribution.   This stuff just has to be designed in.

Both RubyGems (admittedly not 100% automatically) and rpa-base (from the
very first public release: 0.1.0, i.e. long before I thought of that as
a feature and listed it at http://rpa-base.rubyforge.org) can upgrade
themselves. rpa-base can update modules in the base distribution too, if
you let it take ownership of those files (and overwrite them as needed).
RubyGems can emulate that if you set RUBYOPT or add a 
 require 'rubygems'
to your software.

That said, it is best not to give up on any of our freedom to change
rpa-base to make it better: consider for instance changes in the internal
installed package lists or metadata storage. In the current development
phase, we absolutely want to be able to modify everything as needed.

RubyGems is nearly 1.0, so it might make sense to include it in OSX.
It would be premature to include rpa-base since, despite being more
featureful, it is subject to harder requirements.  Remember it's 0.2.2,
that's more of a statement about where we want to go for 1.0 than
about its current maturity.  We don't want to get stuck with possible
mistakes in our fundamentals. Once we're *absolutely* sure they're 100%
sound, rpa-base will become 1.0 quickly.

-- 
Hassle-free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/