Re: RAA.succ? (rpkg vs rubynet)

Phil Tomson ([e-mail]) wrote:
> Can sombody(s) do a quick compare and contrast of rpkg and rubynet?
> Sounds like rubynet has more requirements (XML parser, etc.) which is a 
> bit worrisome since we would like whatever packaging system to work 'out 
> of the box' (though I think I've heard that REXML will be included in 1.8, 
> did I hear correctly?)

Here's a quick comparison.  I'm going to go over the requirements, advantages,
and struggles of each project quickly, as far as I can see from information
publicly available on the web.  Hopefully the developers on each project can
help clarify.

 1. Software requirements:

    rpkg requires zlib.
      [http://www.allruby.com/rpkg/usage.html#AEN4]

    rubynet requires ruby-libxml, ruby-libxslt.
      [http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/*checkout*/rubynet/rubynet/WORK?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/plain]

    Running a rubynet server also seems to require quite a bit:
      *) A good network connection
      *) A unix server
      *) postgresql 7.2.1+
      *) ruby
      *) ruby-dbi
      *) ruby-dbd_pg
      *) ruby-libxml*
      *) ruby-libxslt*
      *) fping (ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/dept/networking/pub/fping/)
      [http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/rubynet/rubynet/REQUIREMENTS?rev=1.2&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup]

 2. Project ideals:

    rpkg
      1. Modeled after Debian's apt.
      2. Command-line tool for:
         a. searching online repository for current modules
         b. downloading, installing, and removing archives
      3. .rpk files can be distributed offline
      4. Few steps to build a package:
         a. Create directories for binary files, docs, unit tests, library files.
         b. Create an RPKG/control file:

              Package: foo
              Version: 0.0.1
              Section: net
              Priority: optional
              Architecture: all
              Depends:
              Conflicts: foopkg-beta
              Replaces: foopkg-beta
              Maintainer: Mr. Maintainer <[e-mail]>
              Source:
              Description: A foo package
               Everything here is the long description.
               Every line must be indented by one space.
               .
               Blank lines are not allowed, use a point as in the line above.

         c. rpkg --build foopkgdir
    
    rubynet
      1. Inspired by CPAN and FreeBSD ports collection, but seems to be its own creature.
      2. Command-line tool for:
         a. searching online repository for current modules
         b. downloading and installing archives
         c. creating new archives
            --create would take the XML file for the module and create the
              actual module/package.  The module should be a gzipped XML file
              with the maximum compression (done via libxml).  shared objects
              or other binary pieces of data should be MIME64 encoded before
              being included in the XML file (should be a simple call to
              pack()).
      3. rubynet_require 'module_name'
      4. Rubynet appears to mandate some sort of structure for peer review of packages and documentation,
           though I don't know where there are specifics as to how this works.
           [http://rubynet.sf.net/]
      5. "dot rubynet" files describe a package:
         a. A package maintainer has all of these files, containing key-value pairs:
            .rubynet_author(_*)?
            .rubynet_build
            .rubynet_categories
            .rubynet_dependency(_*)?
            .rubynet_files
            .rubynet_libs
            .rubynet_project
            .rubynet_test
            [http://rubynet.org/apps/rubynet/]
         b. Which are compiled into XML.
             "I haven't documented really how this fits into the whole
             build process, but suffice it to say that developers/users will edit
             various dot files described in the below spec which will then be
             compiled into the rubynet module file (a compressed XML file). The
             only dot file that I'm not happy with or want to rework is the
             .rubynet_files file.  The .rubynet_files contains the packaging list
             for an installed module and not the list of files that are to be
             included in the rubynet package (the files section of the rubynet
             module... think of it as the list of files that you'd want to tar up
             if had to package up your module)."
            [http://lists.rubynet.org/lists/pipermail/rubynet-devel/2002-October/000188.html]

3. Thoughts/Concerns

   rpkg
     1. This project is great because it's simple.  It could be mirrored and implemented
        right now without tremendous pain.
     2. Currently only distributes Linux binaries.
     3. Could use man pages, more options in the CLI, better interfaces for access the repository
        from Ruby.
     4. The project doesn't seem to have a clear plan for mirroring.

   rubynet
     1. This project is VERY precocious.  And it's also quite young.  They are just beginning a long
        process and are still in the planning stages.  I would say a useable rubynet is two years out.
        Not to mention that many of the developers are wrapped up in other time-consuming projects.
     2. This project could be tremendous. 
     3. This project could be a mess.
     4. My ultimate thought after looking at rubynet was: why aren't they teaming up with rpkg/rapt?
        rubynet is tackling the same issues as rpkg/rapt with very few advantages to their packaging
        approach.  Why don't these two teams get together and have rapt/rpkg work on the packaging
        system, while rubynet works on the infrastructure?
     5. Rubynet on rpkg:

        "Aren't there other Ruby package management systems out there? Yes,
        there is one other one that we know about called rpkg.  However, we believe
        Rubynet will be quite different then rpkg. Rubynet is a service
        based system allowing clients to query Rubynet for a vast variety
        of information aside from just packages. The Rubynet services
        available will be published allowing new clients to be written
        independent of the Rubynet project."
        [http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:E9ZNTmfltYwC:www.rubynet.org/+rubynet+rpkg&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]

4. Verdict:  Rubynet could use rpkg's simplicity.  Rpkg could use some of rubynet's complexity.

_why