[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:06:21PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> 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.

I have no problem with renaming pthsem into pth, if this is wanted by
the "community". I don't want to do a hostile takeover of pth.

But this needs coordination with the other distributions shipping pth.
If one of the big distributions says no and still ships GNU pth, it
will only cause confusion.

I will not call the result "GNU pth", only pth. Calling it GNU will
probably only add restrictions/requirements, without any benefit.

Martin Kögler

Reply to: