Re: Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support
Hello, everyone!
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:04:07 +0100, Martin wrote:
> 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.
"The community" is not limited to the distribution's package maintainers,
however. The developers of applications, which currently have GNU Pth
as a build requirement, would need to decide on whether they would want to
migrate to an "enhanced" library. As a packager one typically doesn't
replace a library with a forked one without app authors agreeing with that.
I see that Ralf has replied. - In general, whether and how to move from
a renamed fork to replacing a project (in order for development to continue
in various ways) shall be discussed with the author of the library that
is being forked, provided that contact can be established. In this case
that happened.
At Fedora, GNU Pth has not lead to any problem reports in several years.
There are only two customisation patches we carry (one to make pth-config
switch between /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 at run-time, and another for
inserting -g into the compiler flags). So, there is no reason to replace
it. Unless app authors started with switching to a fork.
Regards,
--
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@fedoraproject.org>
Fedora release 12 (Constantine) - Linux 2.6.31.12-174.2.3.fc12.i686.PAE
loadavg: 0.00 0.00 0.00
Reply to: