FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-21-2010, 09:52 PM
Yavor Doganov
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

Marc Leeman wrote:
> > (OTOH, speaking generally, it is sad to see a package "reborn"
> > under another name just because
>
> Don't read to much into this;

Well, as a matter of fact I don't. Probably I wouldn't have replied
to the thread if pth wasn't a GNU package, but my opinion would be the
same. A fork should be the last resort, when all efforts to prevent
the fork have been tried and failed. The introduction of a forked
package in a distro is a separate issue, but it naturally is something
not to be taken lightly.

> pth is for sure a smaller effort in Martins' work. We just want to
> get over this small hurdle in order to get his really interesting
> stuff included (which depends on this).

Avoiding this "small hurdle" will result in a much bigger hurdle for
every distribution, especially Debian when you take into account the
number of packages and supported architectures. Every new package
results in extra load on the infrastructure (which is not only
machines), possible user confusion, possible and very likely further
effort by QA/security/release teams, etc.

> OK, sent a short note to maintainers@gnu.org.

Thanks!


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-24-2010, 10:26 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default 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


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:18 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org