Re[2]: [PEAR-QA] Re: [pear-webmaster] Re: [PEAR-QA] Thought about unmaintained package (Net_IRC in this case)

Hello Klaus, >> KG> Come to think of it, a package may be maintained but depreciated... And >> KG> another unmaintained but not depreciated. So I guess the best way to >> KG> solve the problem is to simply add a field indicating whether a package >> KG> is maintained or not. >> >> Please provide an example where package is maintained or deprecated? >> To me 'Deprecated' implies 'Unmaintained'. If you have time to report >> bugs and use deprecated package - you can always follow old PEAR >> tradition and contact former developers. It is Ok if you will not >> recieve support either it is deprecated package or unmaintained. KG> A maintained package that is depreciated will be DB, for example, once KG> DB2 comes out. Or MDB when MDB2 comes out. Maintained = bugs will be KG> fixed. Depreciated means there's a better package you should use instead. Well, then you suggest to add additional field to database? I think it is not the matter of conceptions and usability (current PEAR version lacks ability to reflect package state at all), but the need of additional DB column, which will contain this "deprecated" flag and information. I propose to make only one "status" table, where status will reflect only the most important issues in package lifecycle and monitor that lifecycle. t --