Re: [naming] permissions managment

<smith@dybnet.de> wrote : > since this naming discussion is getting annoying I want to sum up some > comments: > > since PEAR does not limit packages to not have the same purpose as other > packages the naming scheme of just talking about how "complex" the > package is does not work because there can always be "simpler" or "more > complex" packages added to the repository > > Therefore I guess we are left with the general rule: > Find a good subcategory and then name the thing whatever the author > pleases. > > Finding a good subcategory is annoying enough already. > And making clear what Package can do (that is which is more complex) is > up to the documentation to make clear. > > Maybe we could make this issue more visible to the end user on the PEAR > page. > That is show a little note next to packages that serve the same purpose > with a different scope. > > Auth_0wnz (simple) > Auth_YourMamma (complex) Does this mean we all agree to put this user class into the Auth category ? Bertrand Mansion Mamasam