Re: [gmail] Re: Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:04:30 +0100, Marc Leeman wrote:
> > I need pthsem, so I only want a working version with all features I
> > need.
> All I care about is that there is an agreement between the Debian
> community and the upstream developer. Martin is very active in
> supporting his environment and in that respect I am to inclined to
> support his decision.
> Can we conclude that pthsem is a valid branch, worth a seperate package?
> An alternative for Martin is probably to include/hide pthsem in bcusdk;
> but that would not be as clean IMHO (ffmpeg anyone?)
If pthsem is pth + improvements, and pth is unmaintained both upstream
and in Debian, what's the advantage of changing the library/package
name? I'm not sure we care if its homepage is at GNU or elsewhere.