Re: Bug#579373: ITP: zthreads -- A platform-independent, multi-threading and synchronization library for C++
> * Package name : zthreads
> libzthreads?
> Package: wnpp
> Severity: wishlist
> Owner: Cleto Martin Angelina <cleto.martin@gmail.com>
> Owner: Cleto Martin Angelina <cleto.martin@gmail.com>
>
'zthreads' was the name of the source package I thought for the first
time. There is no matter to change it to 'libzthreads'.
>> Programming Lang: C++
>> Description : A platform-independent, multi-threading, object-oriented and synchronization library for C++
> This is a pretty long "short description".
> I would suggest something like:
> "synchronization library"
> or
> "synchronization library for C++"
Ok. What about "Object-oriented synchronization library for C++"?.
>> It provides several structures for concurrent programming like
>> PoolExecutor, MonitoredQueue, Barriers and much more. Futhermore,
> ^^
> My spell checker suggest: Furthermore
Sorry. Fixed.
>> This library is used in Bruce Eckel's book "Thinking in
>> C++" as a good framework for concurrent programming.
> This last paragraph could/should be dropped. (IMHO, this sounds like
> advertising, and it isn't a useful information about what the package is
> doing / why it is useful / when it it should be used)
My intention is to show that it is a well documented library (the book
is fulled with examples) and C++-expert authors like Bruce Eckel use
this library (so it is a good option). It is true that it is shown
like an advertising... sorry about it, but I think that it is
important to know this library is not a 'quick-and-dirty' solution.
> You're missing the important bit here:
> Version 2.3.2 was released on 03/13/05.
> What about not packaging *that* at all?
It is true zthreads library is apparently abandoned by the original
author. But me and my workmates are specially interested on it and it
is *free software*. At this the moment, we have not found any bug
(just little patches because it is compiled with an old gcc version).
If some bug appears, we are ready to fix it and maintain the software.
We want to package it because it is a really good library (even old),
the library is documented, and much more. As free software, it is
opportunity to improve the library code with Debian users suggestions
and patches.
> Especially if it is not compatible with glibc and all other libraries (ie if
> it does not provide the current libpthread ABI). [I did not check if this is
> the case or not]
I don't know what I should to do for checking that issue in the
library (please, explain me how I can do it).
Thanks a lot for your observations.
Regards,
Cleto.
Reply to: