On 20.01.10 23:04, Martin Koegler wrote:
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.
This seems like a Debian related discussion. But as the author of GNU Pth I can at least say that I've never heard of "pthsem" myself (if I received any email, then, sorry, it seems it wasfiltered by the anti-spam stuff) and also don't know why GNU Pth is considered unmaintained.
Sure, I've not released any newer versions since 2006, but as long as nobody drops me a note that something is broken there is no requirement for any new releases. I'm using it at least under the latest versions of FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris since years. The functionality of GNU Pth is fully complete (at least to the extend I originally planned at about 2004) since 2006 and version 2.0.x. Over the last 10 years we have seen half a dozen forks of GNU Pth (for various addon functionalities or whatever), but they were at least never named "GNU Pth" or just "Pth". If the currentname of this fork is "pthsem", please keep it this way. But please avoid naming it (or its Debian package) just "pth". Thanks.
If "pthsem" is really fully backward compatible to GNU Pth,
then we can even check whether we can include its functionality into
GNU Pth, too. Where do I find its latest sources? Is is the one
under http://www.auto.tuwien.ac.at/~mkoegler/index.php/pth?
Ralf S. Engelschall
rse@engelschall.com
www.engelschall.com