I hope there will be some discussion of RAA.succ (or is it RAA.next) at
the upcoming Ruby Conference, but I thought I’d kick-start the discussion
again here…
So what’s the latest thinking on RAA.succ?
I’d definately like to see
some central repository that could be mirrored instead of the current
model where modules actually live on the contributors server (whether at
home or on an ISP) - needless to say, this tends to lead to the
disappearance of packages.
Phil
Hi,
At Mon, 21 Oct 2002 11:12:49 +0900, Phil Tomson wrote:
So what’s the latest thinking on RAA.succ?
RAA = “http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa.html”
def RAA.succ
“http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/app/raa/”
end
–
Nobu Nakada
ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) wrote in message news:aovlp512vob@enews2.newsguy.com…
I’d definately like to see
some central repository that could be mirrored instead of the current
model where modules actually live on the contributors server (whether at
home or on an ISP) - needless to say, this tends to lead to the
disappearance of packages.
This sounds similar rpkg:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa-list.rhtml?name=rpkg
~ Patrick
CPAN was good, very good when it was little.
But now it is bad, very bad.
Why?
Because you can get stuck in a very extended upgrade cycle as soon as
you start sucking on any one package! Even worse the cycle is not
gauranteed to land you with a mutually compatible set of module versions!
What really is needed is a “Batteries Included” ruby distribution that
will have all (reasonably) prime time RAA modules at the latest (mutually
compatible) version.
Advantages…
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Phil Tomson wrote:
So what’s the latest thinking on RAA.succ?
–
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
Good Ideas:
Ruby - http://www.ruby-lang-org - The best of perl,python,scheme without the pain.
Valgrind - Valgrind Home - memory debugger for x86-GNU/Linux
Free your books - http://www.bookcrossing.com
So what’s the latest thinking on RAA.succ?
It’s about to take flight in the form of packages. The specification
for rubynet packages will allow for Ruby packages to be distributed as
skeleton files or as complete packages with all of the source files
included. Though the XML dtd doesn’t support it yet, rubynet packages
will also contain build information. Currently I have code that will
let you build a module based off of a small set of dot files as
outlined here:
I will also allow users to write their package information into a
single .rubynet file and, like rubydoc, it will allow you to include a
written .rubynet.xml file.
The advantage to rubynet over existing projects ideas for packaging is
that querying a package database is simply an XPath query on a set of
gzipped XML. Recently this has gotten the attention of some folk at
the W3C and they’re keeping tabs on the project’s use of XML and XSLT.
Writing out pages for various modules will be accomplished through
various XSL stylesheets. Things don’t get much more strait forward.
I’d definately like to see some central repository that could be
mirrored instead of the current model where modules actually live on
the contributors server (whether at home or on an ISP) - needless to
say, this tends to lead to the disappearance of packages.
Hrm, how about rsync, FTP, or HTTP mirroring? I’m actually really
keen on CVSup and would like to open up the rubynet CVS repository for
public access so that folks can signup for accounts. If there are
folks that are interested in this, I will gladly hand them keys to the
servers, the rubynet repo, and do whatever possible to help accommodate
getting this off the ground. If we do that, then we could distribute
rubynet modules via XML and have them compiled locally on mirroring
servers. CVSup is extremely efficient in terms of sending diff’s and
syncing CVS repo’s, more so than rsync. If you have questions, please
send email to devel@rubynet.org.
-sc
–
Sean Chittenden
Hi,
From: nobu.nokada@softhome.net
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:28 AM
So what’s the latest thinking on RAA.succ?
RAA = “http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa.html”
def RAA.succ
“http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/app/raa/”
end
We www-admin@ruby-lang.org rewrote current RAA which got
a little old and rickety. We will replace RAA in this
or next week.
Changes:
…that’s all.
SOAP and XML-RPC interfaces will be updated, too.
Regards,
// NaHi
In article 3b3ad3b4.0210211059.324d30db@posting.google.com,
ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) wrote in message
news:aovlp512vob@enews2.newsguy.com…I’d definately like to see
some central repository that could be mirrored instead of the current
model where modules actually live on the contributors server (whether at
home or on an ISP) - needless to say, this tends to lead to the
disappearance of packages.This sounds similar rpkg:
No doubt rpkg should be part of raa.succ, but it still doesn’t address the
need for a central, mirrorable repository for packages/modules/snippets.
Just this morning there was a message on the list about someone not being
able to find the FastCGI module - the link given on the RAA is now dead.
This is a major problem! Until we have a central repository that is
mirrored we have to face the fact that the RAA is just a list of pointers
to potentially non-existent locations. Key packages can (and do) just
disappear when someone’s webserver goes away or when someone moves to
another ISP.
It might be an interesting exercise to write a script that tries to get
to all the links on the RAA to see how many of them are still active.
In regards to rpkg: Is it going to be included in Ruby’s standard
libraries? I tend to think this needs to happen in order for it to become
widely used. Newbies may not know much about downloading and installing a
package. Others may not have root access on their machines. If it comes
with Ruby then it’s more likely to become widely used.
Phil
Patrick May patrick-may@monmouth.com wrote:
Hello,
John Carter john.carter@tait.co.nz wrote:
What really is needed is a “Batteries Included” ruby distribution that
will have all (reasonably) prime time RAA modules at the latest (mutually
compatible) version.
How about ‘ruby-sumo’ in RAA?
http://ruby-sumo.sourceforge.net/
Current package list is as follows:
amrita 0.9.2
amstd 2.0.0
benchmark ?
devel-logger 1.0.0
drb 1.3.8
erb 1.4.3
eruby 0.9.8
fileutils ?
gettext 0.3.2
iconv 0.5
mysql-ruby 2.4.3
once 2.2.2
optionparser 0.10.1
pp ?
racc 1.4.2
rd2html-ext 0.1.2
rdoc beta-2
rdtool 0.6.11
refe 0.5.0
rexml 2.5.2
rttool 0.1.7
ruby-postgres 0.7.0
ruby-zlib 0.5.1
rubyunit 0.5.4-02
set ?
shim-ruby16_18 1.7.3.2002.09.12
stringio ?
strscan 0.6.5
testunit 0.1.4
tmail 0.10.5
tsort ?
uconv 0.4.10
webrick 1.2.3
( http://ruby-sumo.sourceforge.net/pkglist )
It’s for Unix or Cygwin.
Regards,
TAKAHASHI ‘Maki’ Masayoshi E-mail: maki@rubycolor.org
John Carter john.carter@tait.co.nz writes:
Because you can get stuck in a very extended upgrade cycle as soon as
you start sucking on any one package! Even worse the cycle is not
gauranteed to land you with a mutually compatible set of module versions!
I’ve never had that happen. Can you give an example?
What really is needed is a “Batteries Included” ruby distribution that
will have all (reasonably) prime time RAA modules at the latest (mutually
compatible) version.
Who defines the best?
–
The complex-type shall be a simple-type. ISO 10206:1991 (Extended Pascal)
In article 20021023041621.GC48080@perrin.int.nxad.com,
So what’s the latest thinking on RAA.succ?
It’s about to take flight in the form of packages. The specification
for rubynet packages will allow for Ruby packages to be distributed as
skeleton files or as complete packages with all of the source files
included. Though the XML dtd doesn’t support it yet, rubynet packages
will also contain build information. Currently I have code that will
let you build a module based off of a small set of dot files as
outlined here:
Sounds interesting, but again, I’m currently more worried about having all
the code in a central place with mirroring…
I will also allow users to write their package information into a
single .rubynet file and, like rubydoc, it will allow you to include a
written .rubynet.xml file.The advantage to rubynet over existing projects ideas for packaging is
that querying a package database is simply an XPath query on a set of
gzipped XML. Recently this has gotten the attention of some folk at
the W3C and they’re keeping tabs on the project’s use of XML and XSLT.
Writing out pages for various modules will be accomplished through
various XSL stylesheets. Things don’t get much more strait forward.
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?)
I’d definately like to see some central repository that could be
mirrored instead of the current model where modules actually live on
the contributors server (whether at home or on an ISP) - needless to
say, this tends to lead to the disappearance of packages.Hrm, how about rsync, FTP, or HTTP mirroring?
I’m actually really
keen on CVSup
What’s CVSup?
and would like to open up the rubynet CVS repository for
public access so that folks can signup for accounts. If there are
folks that are interested in this, I will gladly hand them keys to the
servers, the rubynet repo, and do whatever possible to help accommodate
getting this off the ground. If we do that, then we could distribute
rubynet modules via XML and have them compiled locally on mirroring
servers. CVSup is extremely efficient in terms of sending diff’s and
syncing CVS repo’s, more so than rsync. If you have questions, please
send email to devel@rubynet.org.
Phil
Sean Chittenden sean@rubynet.org wrote:
In article 007d01c278d8$0b4cd950$85222fc0@sarion.co.jp,
Hi,
From: nobu.nokada@softhome.net
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:28 AMSo what’s the latest thinking on RAA.succ?
RAA = “http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa.html”
def RAA.succ
“http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/app/raa/”
endWe www-admin@ruby-lang.org rewrote current RAA which got
a little old and rickety. We will replace RAA in this
or next week.Changes:
- lightweight top page
- iso8859-1 => UTF-8
- added simple keyword search
- show projects by the specified owner
Those are all great changes, but it still doesn’t address the fact that
the RAA is just a list of links to potentially non-existent locations.
Key packages could be lost after their creators loose interest.
The RAA needs a change in structure not just a change of interface. When
someone creates a module they
want to put on the RAA they should actually upload that module code
to the RAA server where it then resides. There should also be at least one
mirror of the RAA repository. This (as I recall) is the way CPAN works -
it guarantees that crucial modules will not just disappear when someone
changes ISPs or looses interest. You’ll always be able to get a
particular module from the RAA or it’s mirror(s).
There are packages now listed on the RAA that no longer exist - someone
wrote about not being able to find FastCGI this morning. I also tried to
get an extension for top that no longer is available. I’m sure there are
other dead links on the RAA and it’s only gonna get worse as time goes on.
Phil
NAKAMURA, Hiroshi nahi@keynauts.com wrote:
John Carter john.carter@tait.co.nz writes:
Because you can get stuck in a very extended upgrade cycle as soon as
you start sucking on any one package! Even worse the cycle is not
gauranteed to land you with a mutually compatible set of module versions!I’ve never had that happen. Can you give an example?
Can’t remember what I started sucking on, (some tcp/web stuff I think) but
wow did it take a long time to converge and even then it didn’t work.
Ended up with a broken perl suite. (In the end I downloaded a Bundle
instead)
What really is needed is a “Batteries Included” ruby distribution that
will have all (reasonably) prime time RAA modules at the latest (mutually
compatible) version.Who defines the best?
Who said “best”? I didn’t. I said “all”.
Ok, so I said “reasonable prime time”, but I would advocate being generous
in that definition.
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Simon Cozens wrote:
–
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
Good Ideas:
Ruby - http://www.ruby-lang-org - The best of perl,python,scheme without the pain.
Valgrind - Valgrind Home - memory debugger for x86-GNU/Linux
Free your books - http://www.bookcrossing.com
Yip. That’s pretty much what I mean. A good start. Build in an XP like
“all unit tests must passed before check-in” rule and you well on the way
to exactly what I mean.
Thereafter it is a matter of adding more and more of RAA to Sumo.
But to work it must be like a Sumo, fit, fat but stable. Well tested to
all hang together.
On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, TAKAHASHI Masayoshi wrote:
John Carter john.carter@tait.co.nz wrote:
What really is needed is a “Batteries Included” ruby distribution that
will have all (reasonably) prime time RAA modules at the latest (mutually
compatible) version.How about ‘ruby-sumo’ in RAA?
http://ruby-sumo.sourceforge.net/
–
John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : john.carter@tait.co.nz
New Zealand
Good Ideas:
Ruby - http://www.ruby-lang-org - The best of perl,python,scheme without the pain.
Valgrind - Valgrind Home - memory debugger for x86-GNU/Linux
Free your books - http://www.bookcrossing.com
Because you can get stuck in a very extended upgrade cycle as
soon as you start sucking on any one package! Even worse the cycle
is not gauranteed to land you with a mutually compatible set of
module versions!I’ve never had that happen. Can you give an example?
What really is needed is a “Batteries Included” ruby distribution
that will have all (reasonably) prime time RAA modules at the
latest (mutually compatible) version.Who defines the best?
NOOO! Fight this urge!! Perl did this and it’s an unweildy
nightmare. So much so that FreeBSD cut it loose and is no longer
including it in the base install. Of course it’s available from a
port, but still… I’d love to see Ruby included as a base language
but this’ll never happen with the “let’s just bundle it with the
interpeter” kind of attitude that Perl has addopted. Blah. Who wants
to be like that??!!
Instead, I’m of the minimalist+dependencies mindset that it should be
possible to install a module and have that installation install the
required dependencies as needed. This is the aim of rubynet. Again,
help on the project is appreciated. Here are some sample CLI
invocations:
rubynet --install c:libxml2
rubynet --install libxml
rubynet --install Net::GeoIP
Please note that the ‘c:’ is a package namespace prefix that will have
rubynet install the C library libxml2. Yes, rubynet will support
wrapping around C modules and will actually be generic enough to fit
around most applications.
For those curious, the design criteria for rubynet comes from blending
CPAN and FreeBSD’s ports system. I’m scheming to have rubynet fill
all of FreeBSD’s ports requirements that way as the need for complex
ports grows, Ruby might be allowed to sneak in as a base langugage for
the OS. :
:
http://lists.rubynet.org/lists/listinfo/rubynet-devel
-sc
–
Sean Chittenden
The old rpkg can already handle user-side package bases, root
privileges are not needed. An rpkg-bootstrapper (issue ./rpkg-install
and have rpkg install download and install itself) is also on the
wishlist, though not at the top.
Massimiliano
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 02:37:34AM +0900, Phil Tomson wrote:
In regards to rpkg: Is it going to be included in Ruby’s standard
libraries? I tend to think this needs to happen in order for it to become
widely used. Newbies may not know much about downloading and installing a
package. Others may not have root access on their machines.
I’d definately like to see some central repository that could be
mirrored instead of the current model where modules actually live on
the contributors server (whether at home or on an ISP) - needless to
say, this tends to lead to the disappearance of packages.Hrm, how about rsync, FTP, or HTTP mirroring?
I’m actually really keen on CVSup
What’s CVSup?
CVSup is REALLY REALLY REALLY cool stuff in action. -sc
–
Sean Chittenden
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.
Software requirements:
rpkg requires zlib.
[http://www.allruby.com/rpkg/usage.html#AEN4]
rubynet requires ruby-libxml, ruby-libxslt.
[Best Open Source Mac Software 2024]
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/)
[rubynet download | SourceForge.net]
Project ideals:
rpkg
Modeled after Debian’s apt.
Command-line tool for:
a. searching online repository for current modules
b. downloading, installing, and removing archives
.rpk files can be distributed offline
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 <foo@bar.com>
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
Thoughts/Concerns
rpkg
rubynet
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.
This project could be tremendous.
This project could be a mess.
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?
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]
Verdict: Rubynet could use rpkg’s simplicity. Rpkg could use some of rubynet’s complexity.
_why
Phil Tomson (ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com) 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?)
Hi,
From: NAKAMURA, Hiroshi [mailto:nahi@keynauts.com]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 5:04 PM
We www-admin@ruby-lang.org rewrote current RAA which got
a little old and rickety. We will replace RAA in this
or next week.
Done within this morning. I’m sorry for your inconvenience
about a little long down-time.
Changes:
- lightweight top page
- iso8859-1 => UTF-8
- added simple keyword search
- show projects by the specified owner
…that’s all.
SOAP and XML-RPC interfaces will be updated, too.
Users of RAA SOAP and XML-RPC interfaces, please tell
me if the problem occurred. I changed wire format a
little. See below;
Except SOAP and XML-RPC we are offering a plain XML or
RDF file of RAA information. Those are at
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa-xml.xml
and
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa-rdf.xml
You can also get recent information in RDF format from
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa-since.mrb
Users of pragdave’s XML/RDF feed interfaces should use
above for a while. Pragdave’s former interfaces are not
updated now because of replacing RAA DB. Bare in mind
some changes are made to these interfaces, too. See
below;
Regards,
// NaHi, member of this RAA renewal project.
Hi,
In message “Re: RAA.succ?” on 02/10/23, Phil Tomson ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com writes:
Those are all great changes, but it still doesn’t address the fact that
the RAA is just a list of links to potentially non-existent locations.
Key packages could be lost after their creators loose interest.
The RAA needs a change in structure not just a change of interface.
OK, OK. Let me clarify.
We really need a new RAA with better interface. This is what Nahi and
others are working on.
We also need something like CPAN for Ruby, aka RAA.succ. But it
requres much work and time. So we go step by step.
matz.
Hi,
I agreed with Phil that the code should be stored on RAA Servers.
I got some modules/classes that I would like to share, but I do not have
a web page.
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Tomson [mailto:ptkwt@shell1.aracnet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:38 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: RAA.succ?
In article 007d01c278d8$0b4cd950$85222fc0@sarion.co.jp,
NAKAMURA, Hiroshi nahi@keynauts.com wrote:
Hi,
From: nobu.nokada@softhome.net
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 11:28 AMSo what’s the latest thinking on RAA.succ?
RAA = “http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/raa.html”
def RAA.succ
“http://www.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/app/raa/”
endWe www-admin@ruby-lang.org rewrote current RAA which got
a little old and rickety. We will replace RAA in this
or next week.Changes:
- lightweight top page
- iso8859-1 => UTF-8
- added simple keyword search
- show projects by the specified owner
Those are all great changes, but it still doesn’t address the fact that
the RAA is just a list of links to potentially non-existent locations.
Key packages could be lost after their creators loose interest.
it guarantees that crucial modules will not just disappear when someone
changes ISPs or looses interest. You’ll always be able to get a
particular module from the RAA or it’s mirror(s).
There are packages now listed on the RAA that no longer exist - someone
wrote about not being able to find FastCGI this morning. I also tried
to
get an extension for top that no longer is available. I’m sure there
are
other dead links on the RAA and it’s only gonna get worse as time goes
on.
Phil