From: David Ross <dross@...>
Date: 2004-10-28T01:12:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Gems as key? Re: The real Ruby vs. Python.

Its Me wrote:

>"Abe Vionas_MailingList" <mailinglist_abe@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>  
>
>>What it comes down to is what it's coming down to for
>>me... platform maturity.
>>    
>>
>
>This bites me quite often as well, though I have not given up. There are
>likely hordes of unwashed masses like me, not entirely adept at
>source-patch-recompile-rebuild, who never even get started with Ruby because
>of the kinds of issues Abe describes.
>
>Their loss or Ruby's? Unfortunately, probably both.
>
>I feel gems is one of the keys to getting past this. Gems can make my local
>(Windows) Ruby install feel like
>  - a single plug-in system
>  - pulling together 'requires'
>  - incorporating documentation from a single starting point
>  - including compatible versions and dependencies
>
>It would be great if gems was part of the standard Ruby distribution, if RPA
>could use gems as its underlying package manager (reducing confusion for
>newBs), and if RPA could then also take on the role of Release Manager for
>Ruby itself.
>
>Some misc thoughts:
>
>- Could gems ALSO cover binaries AND binary/library dependencies?
>
>- Could the gems RDOCs have links to some gems-aligned community
>documentation site, as someone else proposed here recently?
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
RPA and RubyGems have different aspects in implementation, so it would 
not be compatible/easy. Now that I have a RPA QA team for windows, we 
should have binaries put together soon. Good support for software. :)

David Ross
-- 
Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/