From: Massimiliano Mirra <list@...>
Date: 2002-10-24T04:15:21+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA.succ? (rpkg vs rubynet)

On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:10:53AM +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:
> 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.

Thank you for having taken the time to write this.  I wanted to add a
little update:

>     rpkg
>       1. Modeled after Debian's apt.

Thanks to Sean Russel who patiently lobbed me, rpkg has taken some
things from other systems.  The ways to install a package now are:

  - get and install a single preassembled .rpk;

  - get and istall a preassembled .rpk and the .rpk's it depends on,
    taking care automatically of conflicts and bugs (missing packages
    and circular dependencies);

  - get the upstream sources from a central mirror (rpkg://), from a
    remote URI (http://, ftp://, cvs://), or from the filesystem
    (file://), get a buildscript, run it to build the .rpk locally,
    and install it.

The latter means that packaging a module will be just a matter of
writing the buildscript and sharing that.  The package base can grow
very quickly that way.

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

I admit a strong bias towards simplicity, but I welcome every
proposal.  Just don't ask me to use XML (sorry).



Massimiliano