From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2004-08-29T04:57:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Install to bin dir?

On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 04:15:30AM +0900, vruz wrote:
> [snip]
> > There are noticeable differences between the systems you mention.
> > To begin with, RPA is the Ruby Production Archive, a broad project, and
> > not only a package manager, which is AFAIK unprecedented in ruby-land
> > (not that it matters anyway). The port/package manager I developed for
> > RPA is rpa-base (really need a better name it seems).
> 
> how about rpainstall or rpaget ?
> that would keep the raainstall tradition and would make more clear the 
> difference between the client application and the wider project.
> (I tend to avoid hyphens and underscores as much as I can for
> command names, but then that's only me)

I was thinking of just doing s/rpa-base/rpapkg/.
The command line tool would probably remain as rpa because short == sexy :)
It is my understanding that the confusion between RPA and its port/package
manager is inherent, so an eventual renaming would not really change the
situation :-/

What do you think? Should the command line tool be renamed too?
rpaget/rpainstall wouldn't do because rpa can also perform queries, update
the port/package info, and in the future configure installed software...

-- 
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com