From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2003-04-09T06:56:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Call for standardised package installation procedure

In article <145348502990.20030408225253@soyabean.com.au>,
Gavin Sinclair  <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 8, 2003, 4:49:58 AM, Mauricio wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 01:29:06AM +0900, Sean Russell wrote:
>>> This is all very Ruby-oriented.  The *best* thing, for users, is that
>>> they install Ruby modules the same way they install any other
>>> software.  apt-get, emerge, rpm -Uvh, whatever. 
>
>> agree wholeheartly
>
>> in my system, *nothing* would be better than being able to do 
>>  apt-get install module
>> and having that take care of the dependencies.
>
>
>This sort of topic comes up every now and then, and generates some
>excitement, then dies down.  Raa-install is very impressive already;
>people should use that and send feedback to this list and to the
>raa-install list (very quiet at the moment - it needs some developer
>interest as well).
>
>Not all RAA packages are amenable to raa-install; that is known.
>What's not known is what we can do about it.  All the suggestions in
>the world are not going to progress the state of the art until we have
>a common frame of reference.  That is: use raa-install, report on
>packages that fail to comply, try to "fix" those specific cases,
>generalise the solution, and voila - massive improvement.
>
>Dreams are fine, but the reality is that a solution is underway, and
>by keeping it on the agenda while making steady progress, the wishes
>will be fulfilled.


True. raa-install isn't perfect, but it exists now and in most cases it 
works.  Some may wish for a much more 'feature-full' package installation 
tool, but often these things progress more pragmatically...

What about getting raa-install included in 1.8?

Phil