Quoting botp / delmonte-phil.com, on Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 12:21:01PM +0900:
> Sam Roberts [mailto:sroberts / uniserve.com] wrote:
> 
> //> +10
> //> [snipped a lot of good & practical justifications]
> //> 
> //> but i think what you are asking is rpa :-)
> //
> //Maybe, rpa without the admin overhead, 
> 
> if one needs quality, one needs an admin :-)

Sometimes you don't need quality.

Sometimes I need to be able to release my project, post to my mailing
list, and have my users run "favetool -get sam'sproject", and have it
work, now, whether an admin has had the time to look at my project, and
even if the project is alpha and sucks right now.

If after it is good the RPA folks want to bless it, thats great, then
you can use it at your company with an assurance of quality.

> // where anything on RAA 
> //can be installed with it.
> 
> ah, rubygems at rubyforge would do fine.
> 
> but then again, who would port all those raa pckages to rubyforge/gems? An
> admin again, perhaps?

Well, isn't all the info in RAA sufficient to install a project?

If I can go to RAA with my web browser, go to a project page, hit the
download link, tar -xzf proj.tgz; cd proj; ruby setup.rb install...

... maybe a script could do this?

The only reason a script couldn't is that the naming conventions aren't
strong enough (some folks use setup.rb, some use install.rb), etc.

The gem tool (and rpa, I assume) when it packages something up, what it
is really doing is enforcing a structure, so tools can work with it.
This is cool.

The way I see it is:

 - gems is a nice packaging system, with the unacceptable overhead of
   a poorly considered versioning system

 - rpa is a nice packaing system, with the unacceptable overhead of
   an external evaluation process


If you could post .rpa somewhere, and the admin team could bless some
subset later, at their leisure and discretion, I'd be happy.

If gems didn't require me to change my ruby code, or hack my
environment, I'd be happy.

So close to happiness....

Cheers,
Sam