Re: Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 08:08:03PM +0100, Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> 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 was
> filtered by the anti-spam stuff) and also don't know why GNU Pth is
> considered unmaintained.
First, I happy, that contacting you has (finally) succeed and one of
mails reached you.
> 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.
Yes, pth is stable and working, but probably not feature complete for
some people (otherwise there would be no need for forks).
> 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 current
> name of this fork is "pthsem", please keep it this way. But please avoid
> naming it (or its Debian package) just "pth". Thanks.
Calling it pth was the idea of some people on the debian mailing list
to avoid having GNU pth and a "extended" pth package in the distribution.
> 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?
The latest sources can be found at:
I'll send you in a private mail more details and hits to the relevant