From: Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>
Date: 2002-03-14T01:58:14+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] rpkg 0.3

On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 11:24:21PM +0900, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > > The idea is that at least *one* of those is usually available.
> > Errr... sorry if this is a stupid question, but how does this relate
> > to rpkg-lite?
> I think the point was that CPAN can make use of a number of different
> software to do a task - thus, if rpkg did that, then even if one of
> those software packages weren't on the system, it would still work. It
> would increase the chances of rpkg being usable without having to
> download dependencies.

I see.  However, the issue here was not on the fetching method---rpkg
uses File.cp for local repositories and Net::HTTP for remote ones,
both are contained in the standard library and do not generate
dependencies---but on the dependency on the uri package, that is why
I'm not sure how the CPAN's way of fetching files relates to it.

Of course, should the uri package go into the standard distribution,
the issue would fade (hint hint ;->).

> I would think, however, that just distributing a tarball/zip file of
> the necessary Ruby extensions with rpkg would be nicer.  It would
> make rpkg a lot simpler and smaller, and less error-prone.

I am for simplicity and for the same reason.  I also like the Dave's
idea of making easy the installation of what makes installations easy
(congratulations if you had to read the previous sentence only once!),
though I don't know how much of a priority it is when compared with
dependence checking/resolution and platform-specific binary extension
packages.

Massimiliano