Re: Re: About the package proposal interface

On Sunday 17 August 2003 13:59, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > On 17 Aug 2003 at 13:36, David Grant wrote: > > On Sunday 17 August 2003 11:22, Derick Rethans wrote: > > > The problem that I see is that a lot > > > of people vote +1 for either the idea, or because > > > they-might-sometime-need-this-feature too. I think that's wrong. IMO > > > packages should be useful for a large group of people before put > > > into PEAR. So the question should be "Is this package useful for a > > > large group of people?" instead of the current "Is this package cool > > > or might it sometime be useful to me?". Think outside yourself > > > people... > > > > I haven't been around the PEAR community very long, and I know you > > have, so you can disregard my opinion if you choose, but shouldn't > > PEAR be a home for any package that provides an easier way to carry > > out a specific task? I'm not talking about applications, but rather > > wrappers and interfaces on to protocols, file types, technologies, > > etc. that might take a while to write by oneself. > > I think if you can make do a task easier / "in just two lines" this > package is a candidate in my eyes. It needs to have well written > code, a clear and future-wise interface and be universal / > extendable. [-> see next comment on Net_Gopher] Exactly. > > There are some packages in PEAR that are unlikely to be used by a > > "large group", for example, Net_Gopher (no disrespect to Sara Golemon, > > it was plucked for the statistics page), but if it is useful for just > > a small group of people then surely it is worth it? I envisage PEAR > > as a place for relative newbies to PHP (or even more experienced > > types) to visit if there is something they're going to do with a > > protcol, file type or technology that they are unsure of how to > > approach. > > Okay most people might not have a concrete need for this. But I think > it's a generally available protocol. The "problem" that it isn't used > today anymore that much doesn't directly mean it shouldn't find it's > way into pear. If the package is good and if the developer is still > ready to maintain it that's fine with me. Just a "release and forget" > is surely something we can't accept. I agree. My point wasn't that it might not be the most popular package, but that gopher is, as you put it, a generally available protocol, that that is why it is good to have it available. I used it as an example for exactly that reason. Regards, David Grant