From: JamesBritt <james@...>
Date: 2002-10-23T12:17:53+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA.succ?

> The thing is: no one seems to know the future of RAA.succ, so adding
> mirrors to an uncertain project is a waste of time.  We either need
> to see the prevailing projects duke it out (rubynet vs. rpkg) or we
> could support both for a time.

I've used rpkg, and love its CPAN.pm-like abilities.
What, though, is rubynet? I've perused rubynet.org, I can't find anything that
explains it.

>
> I've spent some time reading the CPAN modules to get an idea of how
> they do mirroring and it just seems to involve FTP sites with metadata
> and modules.  I'd love to see us shack up with CPAN because we could
> certainly build a cool interface on top of the existing infrastructure.
> But I don't think there's enough inertia on our part or theirs to make
> this happen.

I suspect too much inertia may be the problem.

>
> My feeling is that we should start mirroring the rpkg effort.  It's a
> working project.  It seems with RAA.succ that the urge is irresistible
> to start something new all the time.  Rather, let's pick a project to
> support and make it happen.  Or make both happen.  I don't see the specifics
> of implementation (rubynet vs. rpkg) being as big of a deal as just
> forming the league of mirrors which can help us preserve RAA as soon
> as possible.

Competing projects is a doubled-edged sword.  It's good to see different ideas
fleshed out, but users are ultimately better served by one consistent format.
It may be that one project overwhelmingly wins the hearts and minds of users,
and the others drop out. It's also possible that multiple camps will develop,
each preferring and supporting a different, incompatible package library.  For
the average user just trying to locate and install code it could get annoying
real fast.



James