Re: Third Party (Non-Official) PEAR Packages?

"Thorsten Suckow-Homberg" <ts@siteartwork.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20030806232442.60387.qmail@pb1.pair.com... > I c, > > but how dow you want to avoid that functionality of third party-software is > allready defined in some other (primary) package - or is gonna to be > implemented as such afterwards? well... "There's more than one way to do it" (Larry Wall) ;) Don't think we must discuss the problem from this point of view - we couldn't avoid people use other solutions without waiting for upcoming PEAR releases as well ... > > I see a problem in keeping the balance - I think third party products should > be added to the primary package as soon as there will be a need for the > individual functionality this unofficial releases supply. Yes. and it's very good so. But we must think about one thing: PEAR was designed not just for PEAR-developers ;). You cant avoid people use PEAR infrastructure in their projects - PEAR is great, powerful and make live easier ;) I dont think PEAR stuff could ever become "another HotScripts-Project" - due to logic alone... > > Am I wrong if I fear that people won't use the primary packages (those for > which PEAR was designed) - and instead keep downloading those unsupported > packages? hm... Are we talking about concurent projects here? Dont think so... ;) > Would PEAR become another "HotScripts"-Project? Regards DV > > Regards > > Thorsten > >