Re: Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support
Martin Koegler, le Wed 20 Jan 2010 23:04:07 +0100, a écrit :
> 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.
That's why you should discuss with GNU. As said in another post, you
can just ask them to say on their website that they do not maintain it
any more, and point to your page.
> But this needs coordination with the other distributions shipping pth.
With the link mentioned above, that's no problem.
> If one of the big distributions says no and still ships GNU pth, it
> will only cause confusion.
Agreed.
> I will not call the result "GNU pth", only pth. Calling it GNU will
> probably only add restrictions/requirements, without any benefit.
Right. People often know "pth" short anyway.
Samuel
Reply to: