On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:44:44 +0900, Mauricio FernáÏdez <batsman.geo / yahoo.com> wrote: > > [I write this reluctantly, such a dñËvu] > With the same reluctance.... > > I must say that I do not really understand why so much pressure is put > on us to dump a custom-made tool, crafted to suit our needs, which does > not compete against RubyGems, in favor of the latter. Agreed. I don't care if you dump rpa-base or keep it at this point. There's a lot of mailing list noise about it, but other than that there is no real negative effect of having the two formats. > > and since Matz seems to have indicated that RubyGems > > will become part of the core when it's ready, then it will work > > transparently. > > AFAIK matz's latest take on this is > > I'd happy to merge the packaging system (with > which both teams can agree) in the standard Ruby. > > That's fine; maybe some of our ideas can help make RubyGems better. > They already have. But it seems to me that Matz feels we need to converge on a common format (between RubyGems and RPA). We don't. I propose that we already "agree" to the necessary level. We have totally different goals, with some confusing implementation overlap. > > How is that equivalent to a manifesto? :-) > I refuse to ever write anything called a "manifesto", nor do I think there are many people confused by the fact we haven't written one. Here's the purpose of RubyGems (my take on it): RubyGems is: 1. A package format for Ruby libraries and applications. 2. A system for managing installation of such packages from both local and remote sources. 3. A "master source"/repository for such packages. 4. Intended to be Ruby's standard for package creation and distribution. Ask more questions if you need more clarification, and I'll add another bullet point or two. > > The talks about RubyGems replacing RAA, etc, didn't originate in the > RubyGems team but rather in groups of users. So it's up to the RubyGems > team to make sure that people understand what RubyGems is and what it is > not meant to be. > People will talk. That's always the case. There are always going to be people coming into ruby-talk and trying to make various aspects of our community and technologies into something they are not. Everyone has an opinion, and talk is cheap. For example, Ruby isn't statically typed, and no matter how much conversation goes on about this, people still bring it up. Let's see if we can let this thread die. -- Chad Fowler http://chadfowler.com http://rubycentral.org http://rubygarden.org http://rubygems.rubyforge.org (over 100,000 gems served!)