RE: [PEAR-DEV] On PEAR quality issues and natural selection

>I do agree that there is a bit of KISS missing from PEAR, but I also >feel that the focus of using the installer is a different kind of KISS >from the old wild west download-and-run mentality. Once this is >understood, I think the installer is quite an asset. I personally would >love to hear more about what you feel should be clearer or improved. >Maybe a package page on pearweb should note if the pear installer is >required or not? Sure, something as simple as "This package requires the PEAR installer.. (Go here to get it)" Perhaps in the dependancies list? Which would really be a psuedo-dependency, just an FYI, really. >Did you read the INSTALL file that is distributed with it? If so, then >the lack of clarity as to the need for the pear installer is definitely >our(my) fault. Its been so long ago I can't remember. Just guessing, probably not. >This makes sense - the package was originally designed to be standalone. > However, it comes at a price. The tarball is currently 2.6MB and >growing. This is because it bundles Smarty, Cezpdf, HTML_TreeMenu etc. That's how phpMyAdmin works too.. which previous to that point was the entirety of my experience with downloading PHP packages. I thought (then) that's how they all worked. Regards, Richard York