Misunderstanding on what PEAR is

The PEAR concept it self is only a Repository, a unique web repository and the works done in this area (pear web and pear installer/packager) are in this direction. Also it's not a common repository, is a repository with software that: * has been approved to be in by the Pear developers and has the general concensus of the Pear community (Pear users) * follows a unique coding standars (avaible to read, already stadarized and used in all PEAR) * uses a common error handling mechanism * tries to have a similar way of use * has documentation about its API in the PHPDoc format * has documentation/examples/tests (to be marked as stable) All this _is_ PEAR proyect. I don't see the point of splitting the Web Repository, changing the actual conventions or droping/adopting things that doesn't meet this list. About the always asked thing: "php4/pear" vs "pear" (the CVS modules). "php4/pear" will only contain things needed by the PEAR infrastructure and will be distributed with the php distribution. The "pear" module contains PEAR software that will be distributed via the pear web in the form of pear packages handled by the PEAR Package Manager (formed by the "pear" script and the classes inside "php4/pear/PEAR/*"). This module is only a tool for helping the developers who joins PEAR but its use is completely optional. It's better for PEAR not to be distributed with php because we could make releases avaible under our own cycle. Tomas V.V.Cox