On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 05:02:52 +0900, Ben Giddings
<bg-rubytalk / infofiend.com> wrote:
> Curt Hibbs wrote:
> > I pretty much agree with your assessment, but I think one more thing is
> > needed. There needs to be of ranking and commenting on libraries (the way
> > one might do with books on amazon). This would be just as useful on
> > RubyForge as it would be on RAA.
> 
> When I saw the description of the problem, I immediately thought of how
> the same is true of Sourceforge, but how one of the first things I look
> for on a new Sourceforge project page is the "activity percentile" and
> the last update.
> 
> Does RubyForge have similar features?  If not, how hard would it be to
> add to RubyForge some automated way of deciding how reliable a library
> is likely to be based on a combination of:
> * when it was last updated
> * when it was first created
> * how many people use (download) it
> 
> IMHO, as a relatively new, English-speaking Ruby programmer, I'd say
> "dump RAA, use RubyForge, dump RPA, use RubyGems".  Any features that
> are not in RubyGems that are in RPA could probably be put in there...
> though they are different goals.  I think growing the already-successful
> RubyGems is the easier, and more natural solution.
> 
> As for RAA vs RubyForge, RAA may be actively used by our Japanese
> friends, but unless they need it, it seems like it's really broken and
> maybe shouldn't be fixed.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 

I'm not really good informed, but as far as I know to use ruby gems
you need to change the sourcecode of your program, while rpa is a real
package installer that installs libraries into the search path. If
this is wrong, please correct me. Because somehow this information
came into my head, I decided to use rpa over rubygems.

That gems is older than rpa is not neccisarily a good sign - maybe
experience has brought better ideas into rpa. But I'm no expert and
don't want to start another rpa vs. gems war.

best regards,

Brian


-- 
Brian Schröäer
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/