From: David Garamond <lists@...6.isreserved.com>
Date: 2004-11-19T20:55:28+09:00
Subject: RPA vs rubygems (Re: [ANN] postgres-pr (pure Ruby PostgreSQL))

Mauricio Fern�ndez wrote:
>>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 :

I see. Thanks for the clear-up. Haven't had a chance to play with RPA.

So which between rubygems and RPA is more popular? Is there any 
indication of  which one will be the "official" or "preferred" packaging 
system for Ruby in the future? Which one will become (or will be the 
closest to) the Ruby equivalent of CPAN? By that I mean I can find and 
install most Ruby libraries with it.

Ruby library writers, which one do you prefer or do you find easier to 
package your software with?

Regards,
dave