Re: Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support
Marc Leeman wrote:
> > (OTOH, speaking generally, it is sad to see a package "reborn"
> > under another name just because
> Don't read to much into this;
Well, as a matter of fact I don't. Probably I wouldn't have replied
to the thread if pth wasn't a GNU package, but my opinion would be the
same. A fork should be the last resort, when all efforts to prevent
the fork have been tried and failed. The introduction of a forked
package in a distro is a separate issue, but it naturally is something
not to be taken lightly.
> pth is for sure a smaller effort in Martins' work. We just want to
> get over this small hurdle in order to get his really interesting
> stuff included (which depends on this).
Avoiding this "small hurdle" will result in a much bigger hurdle for
every distribution, especially Debian when you take into account the
number of packages and supported architectures. Every new package
results in extra load on the infrastructure (which is not only
machines), possible user confusion, possible and very likely further
effort by QA/security/release teams, etc.
> OK, sent a short note to email@example.com.