On 20/10/2025 14:10, Rowan Tommins [IMSoP] wrote:
For the record, I posted a message on Saturday, inviting comments on
this discussion, to four mailing lists (pear-general, pear-dev,
pear-core, and pear-webmaster) plus the pear-group@ address.
So far, there have been no responses.
It has now been a week since I sent out my messages. Pierre has also
CC'd Chuck Burgess (twice, first more than two weeks ago) and Christian
Weiske.
There have been no responses.
While it's possible that some interested parties haven't had a chance to
see and respond, all signs point to the same thing: there is no
currently active PEAR Group, and no active PEAR community to elect a new
one.
There is also nobody actively maintaining the website, and nobody likely
to do so if it moved to a new domain.
The pear.php.net website was set up by, and remains the copyright of,
the *PHP Group*, so arguably they have the final say on its fate.
For now, I think this list is as good a place as any to openly discuss
proposals.
As such, I propose:
1. We remove all references to PEAR in php-src, such as build options
and installation instructions.
2. We remove any references in the PHP manual, and add a suggestion to
look at Composer, as an unofficial but popular package manager.
3. We immediatlely make the Package Proposals system ("PEPr") read-only.
4. We add a banner in the header on pear.php.net announcing that the
site and channel will shut down at the end of 2026. This can link to a
page which includes tips on installing the same packages using Composer.
Steps 3 and 4 obviously require someone to have access to deploy a new
version of the website. It's not clear exactly who has that access, but
I imagine we can find someone if there is consensus on the changes.
The details of the text can be prepared in public as a pull request to
https://github.com/pear/pearweb/
If, during the next year, someone steps forward to run a fork of the
site on a new domain, we can discuss how to transfer the data. If, as
seems more likely, nobody does so, we can discuss exactly what read-only
archive we are willing to maintain.
I would be willing to either take over Asgrim's RFC or write a new one
with this proposal, so that we can confirm consensus with a vote.
--
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]
