Re: [PROPOSAL] Package 'ImageText'

On 11 Oct 2003 at 13:48, Bertrand Mansion wrote: > <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. Hello Bertrand, I am really sorry for this, and yes - you are right. I've been busy for quite a while now and have already written concept as well as basics for Image_Graph. Up to now it's not in CVS since it's not yet good CS etc. :-) Some people have contacted me about Image_Graph and contributed there ideas which I tried to integrate in the idea of a good an extensible package. So the concept has been modified a bit several times. I didn't forget about it and I'm deeply sorry for the inconvenience this might have caused. Will try to put a basic version in CVS tomorrow for discussion of the the and hope to get a v0.1-release done next week. Is that okay with you? Sorry Stefan