From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2004-11-22T20:42:36+09:00
Subject: Re: RPA vs rubygems (Re: [ANN] postgres-pr (pure Ruby PostgreSQL))

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 06:32:33PM +0900, Tobias Luetke wrote:
> > P.s. I like both methods. One thing that RPA has that Gems doesn't is the
> > ability to list (with a single line summary) all of the packages available
> > for download and install through RPA. While I understand that there's a lot
> > of methology differences between the two camps, from a user perspective both
> > seem to accomplish the same thing and do so very well.
> 
> ??? 
> try: gem list -r

Don't look for differences at the UI level, they are irrelevant anyway:
both RubyGems and rpa-base will have better interfaces in the future.
Other features might or might not be important, depending on your needs
(they were required for RPA's goals).

BTW, they are not two [opposing] camps. The RubyGems team have stated
they are going to make the repackaging (and incidentally RPA's) task
easier, and 1/5th of RubyGems' code comes straight from rpa-base.

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