Re: Package proposal: Mail_Mime (alternative)

On 19 Aug 2003 at 10:46, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 02:10:01 -0400 > Greg Beaver <greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote: > > > you've been around PEAR long enough to know that none of the core > > developers care about fairness > > you are wrong (and I remember you are part of the core PEAR developers > now ;) ). > > For the rest, you are right to remember that a package can fit > somewhere else than PEAR. But you are wrong to think we should accept > a package only because it is well done and/or usefull. There are cases > where we should not have more than 1 package, especially for such > features (or DB and MDB). > > You should keep in mind what we said in the meeting before saying such > things. Agreed. Just wondered if there is no way of integration / harmony whatsoever. I'm not in the subject of Mail_Mime or the new proposal that deep, but maybe at least Mail_Mime could benefit from some ideas of the new proposal also? To be clear: *one* class, not 2 alternatives. Or one with an optional add-on (also part of the package Mail_Mime). Stefan