On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:44:36 +0900, Mauricio FernŠŌdez
<batsman.geo / yahoo.com> wrote:
> Comparing RubyGems to RPA is akin to assimilating rpm to FreeBSD.
> It doesn't really make that much sense. I understand that you mean
> one of (1) RubyGems (the installer) could take some features from
> rpa-base (2) RubyGems (the project) could grow in scope and try to
> reach some of the goals expressed by RPA (making it a sort of
> RPAlite?)

> Regarding (1), some things like proper DATADIR support,
> installation into sitelibdir, transparent operation, compatibility
> with native tools, etc. are hardly doable in RubyGems due to some
> fundamental implementation choices.

Sorry, Mauricio, but I disagree. Nothing about RubyGems *prevents*
any of the above. Nothing. The gemspec can be translated into
"native" tools, and the RPA-base layer could be implemented on top
of RubyGems as a platform (e.g., making the sitelibdir and DATADIR
support work), and since Matz seems to have indicated that RubyGems
will become part of the core when it's ready, then it will work
transparently.

I have further indicated in several places how RPA "version-sets"
could be done with RubyGems -- and the latest version of RubyGems
appears to include something that supports this, although it does
require some additional code at the moment.

> As for (2), it is hard to tell which are exactly RubyGems' goals
> because AFAIK there is no public manifesto comparable to
> http://rpa-base.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.cgi?RpaManifesto 

Again, this isn't really true. There isn't anything currently
available aside from the project description:

  RubyGems is the Ruby standard for publishing and managing third
  party libraries.

It is *intended* to be the Ruby standard for publishing and managing
third party libraries, certainly. Much as there's a standard layout
and Makefile form for Perl that makes things Just Work, so RubyGems
is intended to be, while solving certain real problems.

> I would really appreciate if Chad, Jim, Gavin, ..., clarified the
> situation. Especially since there have been some talks as of late
> about RubyGems replacing RAA altogether, RubyGems being the only
> repository for Ruby software, etc.

Um. No. RAA isn't going away. That HAS been made very clear.
RubyGems may become the preferred way of packaging projects, with a
RubyGems site and/or RubyForge becoming a preferred location for
distribution -- but not precluding alternative distribution sites.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca