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 <mschwe...@fedoraproject.org> Fedora release 12 (Constantine) - Linux 2.6.31.12-174.2.3.fc12.i686.PAE loadavg: 0.00 0.00 0.00 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org