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

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

Martin Koegler wrote:
> I must admit, that I have not read anything about GNU maintainers,
> but GNU has usually a bigger "philosophical overhead".

Then I suggest you to read the appropriate documenation [1] before
jumping to premature and possibly incorrect conclusions (what does the
phrase "philosophical overhead" entail?).

A fork is done when there is some kind of unresolvable
conflict/disagreement (be it technical or not).  Forking is a
fundamental right, so there's nothing wrong in forking pth.  But there
are too many (forked) packages in Debian, and the Debian QA team would
have to maintain the original pth package for some time at least,
which is a burden.  If there are people actively working to enhance
pth, the best (for GNU, Debian, and literally everyone else) is to
take over the package upstream.

(OTOH, speaking generally, it is sad to see a package "reborn" under
another name just because the prospective new maintainer cannot
communicate successfully with the original one to negotiate the
takeover.  I once again urge you to write to <maintainers@gnu.org> to
avoid this unpleasant scenario.)

[1] The gnu-standards package in Debian (both documents available also
    online at http://gnu.org/prep).

Reply to: