From: why the lucky stiff <ruby-talk@...>
Date: 2002-12-12T14:07:53+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] jabber4r 0.3.0 (doesn't work with raa-install)

Tom Clarke (tom@u2i.com) wrote:
> 
> It does and it doesn't. It requires either zlib or gnu tar. As the
> windows distribution comes with zlib, and most modern unixy platforms
> will have gnu tar it covers most people.
> 
> I think my vote is to standardize on tar.gz. Any other opinions?
> 

Raa-install is in kind of in a funny place that needs defining, don't
you think?  I mean its mission is to use the existing RAA resources to
perform an installation.  By that definition, raa-install is at the
mercy of the data.  To fully achieve its task, it needs to workaround
every idiosyncracy of the data.  Fixing bad URLs, searching FTP
directories.  If an author checks in a RAR file, then
Raa-install must look at supporting RAR?

I'd truly like to see authors use the fields in RAA to contain data
which is useful to a program such as Raa-install.  The notes section can
be used for excess data.  If we can decide to place direct links to a
tar.gz in the download field, then links to other compressed formats can
be contained in the notes field.  Personally, tarballs are the natural
choice simply because they're in the majority and raa-install already
supports gzip and tar.

So if we can take some steps as a community to provide RAA with more
specific and useful data, then a bit of software like Raa-install won't
be some incredible wizardry.  I'm saying we standardize on [1] a
compression format, [2] our install.rb/setup.rb process, [3] a technique
for identifying package dependancies.  Once decided, this information
must become pervasive, such that popular Ruby site have the information
readily accessible.

Anyways, I'm way off-topic now, but still sort of on.. :)  My vote is
[1] tar.gz, [2] Minero Aoki's install.rb/setup.rb, [3] integration of
install.rb and RAAInstall to provide installation of dependancies.

_why