From: "Mauricio Fernández" Date: 2004-11-19T19:44:17+09:00 Subject: Re: [ANN] postgres-pr (pure Ruby PostgreSQL) On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 04:42:36PM +0900, David Garamond wrote: > David Ross wrote: > >Michael Neumann wrote: > >oh neato. I'm glad someone made a pure ruby version. > > ditto here. a wonderful news. i think i'm going to try to use it on a > regular basis instead of the "postgres" C-based library, solely because > only postgres-pr is available as a gem (yes, i'm that lazy :-). i use > ruby on lots of machines... > > >Is there an rpa? > > i thought the purpose of RPA is as a collection of _production_-level > (mostly mature, stable, well tested) libraries? That is the primary goal of RPA, but it doesn't exclude packaging more libraries; in fact, some 150 libraries/applications have been packaged so far, and many are not "production-level". Quoting from http://rpa-base.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.cgi?Rpa_FAQ : Will there be a repository for experimental packages or will all packages need to fit the production requirements? A (small) part of RPA will be declared suitable for production use (i.e. mature, documented, tested). However, third party software that is not ready for production will be packaged too, in a separate section of the repository. You can compare that broadly to Debian's sections: there will be a "production" section and another bigger one with everything else (we have yet to decide on the names). In other words, the requirements for "production quality" will be met by the software declared production-ready by RPA (this will be a section within RPA). Those requirements do not determine whether some software will be packaged by RPA or not. Clearly, high quality software is more likely to be packaged in RPA, but given enough resources (esp. manpower) RPA could repackage most of the software currently listed in RAA. -- Hassle-free packages for Ruby? RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/