Re: [PROPOSAL] Package 'ImageText'

<tobias@schlitt.info> wrote : > Am Saturday, October 11, 2003 12:03 AM [GMT+0100=CET], > artikulierte Stefan Neufeind <stefan@neufeind.net>: > >> In this point I must support Pierre: >> Thinking about the consequences and possibilites a bit further and >> following the discusssion I'm also against releasing it as ImageText >> because it would surely be best to later move it into the GD-util- >> package (whatever it will be called). Maybe you could sketch a GD- >> tool-package, implement some small but useful functions and for the >> time being mostly concentrate on the Text-part? In my oppinion it >> would be okay to first start with the text-part of the package and do >> a first 0.1 or whatever ... but since we want to keep the number of >> packages small and try to never drop packages altogether (because >> they are completely integrated in another) we should consider aiming >> at the "big" GD-util-package already! > > Sorry, Stefan, I think Pierre was against that GD2 package, wasn't he? Can I remind someone here about a certain package that never released any code, that is supposed to be in Pear but actually is not: http://pear.php.net/package/Image_Graph Thus, I don't understand why Stefan tries to block this package that actually is a good start, when the package he proposed was accepted without showing any code. In the meanwhile, this dead package blocks the proposal for other packages: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=pear-dev&m=106153833230211&w=2 Looks like it's easier to comment others proposal than to actually write the code. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam