Re: Re: About the package proposal interface

On Sunday 17 August 2003 14:57, Stefan Neufeind wrote: > On 17 Aug 2003 at 14:45, David Grant wrote: > > On Sunday 17 August 2003 14:34, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > > > Both, reject packages and create a QA team. But that's my > > > humble opinion. > > > > I'm assuming that all packages submitted would be useful (if only to a > > small group). Does your opinion still hold in this situation? If so, > > what would be the criteria for acceptance, rejection? > > I clearly would like to stress that "a small group" is not to be > confused with "a minority" or "nobody" - since then we wouldn't need > the packages, that's right. But I guess thinking of PEAR as the > "enterprise grade repository" it's also okay to have Net_Gopher (if > it was works correctly and is still maintained) to complete the > repository - even though gopher nowadays is not that widely used > (anymore). In my opinion this is not the point. Agreed. Offering packages for say, a proprietary file format used by a tiny group of individuals, would be counter productive due to the procedures required for getting a package accepted into PEAR. Gopher isn't widely used, true, but it is accessible to everyone that wants it, which should qualify it for inclusion, right? Regards, David