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 01-17-2010, 08:16 PM
Marc Leeman
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Marc Leeman <marc.leeman@gmail.com>


* Package name : pthsem
Version : 2.0.7
Upstream Author : Martin Koegler <mkoegler@auto.tuwien.ac.at>
* URL : http://www.auto.tuwien.ac.at/~mkoegler/index.php
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : pth replacement with semaphore support
This package provides GNU Portable Threads enhanced with semaphore
support.
.
Pth is a very portable POSIX/ANSI-C based library for Unix platforms
which provides non-preemptive priority-based scheduling for multiple
threads of execution (aka ``multithreading') inside event-driven
applications. All threads run in the same address space of the server
application, but each thread has it's own individual program-counter,
run-time stack, signal mask and errno variable.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 5.0
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-17-2010, 08:55 PM
Samuel Thibault
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
> * Package name : pthsem

Mmm, could this perhaps rather be just a patch added to the existing pth
package? Else you'll have to share the Debian patches.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-19-2010, 08:48 AM
Samuel Thibault
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

Martin Koegler, le Tue 19 Jan 2010 09:27:07 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote:
> > Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > > * Package name : pthsem
> >
> > Mmm, could this perhaps rather be just a patch added to the existing pth
> > package? Else you'll have to share the Debian patches.
>
> The situation with GNU pth is:

I guessed so, but still.

The problem is that people know pth, but they don't know pthsem (yet).
It will be a long time before people discover that there is a new
interesting pthsem package that basically does the same as pth with
quite a few extra features, is not dead etc. Why not just replacing the
existing pth package with pthsem to avoid that delay?

Were I Martin Kögler, I'd even just request GNU to become the new
maintainer of pth.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-19-2010, 12:13 PM
Bastien ROUCARIES
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote:
> Martin Koegler, le Tue 19 Jan 2010 09:27:07 +0100, a écrit :
>> Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote:
>> > Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
>> > > * Package name * *: pthsem
>> >
[..]
>
> The problem is that people know pth, but they don't know pthsem (yet).
> It will be a long time before people discover that there is a new
> interesting pthsem package that basically does the same as pth with
> quite a few extra features, is not dead etc. *Why not just replacing the
> existing pth package with pthsem to avoid that delay?

Why not creating a dummy package pth with only compat mode ? This
package will be transationnal and will provide a depend to pthsem

Regards

Bastien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-19-2010, 04:55 PM
Yavor Doganov
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Martin Koegler, le Tue 19 Jan 2010 09:27:07 +0100, a écrit :
> > Samuel Thibault <sthibault@debian.org> wrote:
> > > Marc Leeman, le Sun 17 Jan 2010 22:16:17 +0100, a écrit :
> > > > * Package name : pthsem
> > > Mmm, could this perhaps rather be just a patch added to the
> > > existing pth package?
> >
> > The situation with GNU pth is:
>
> I guessed so, but still.

[...]

> Were I Martin Kögler, I'd even just request GNU to become the new
> maintainer of pth.

...which is usually done by writing to <maintainers@gnu.org>.

It is counter-productive to start a fork just because GNU pth is
unmaintained upstream (it is not an officially "orphaned" GNU package,
AFAICS, but that doesn't matter much if it really is neglected).


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-20-2010, 07:43 PM
Reinhard Tartler
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

On Mi, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:04:30 (CET), Marc Leeman wrote:

> An alternative for Martin is probably to include/hide pthsem in bcusdk;
> but that would not be as clean IMHO (ffmpeg anyone?)

I don't get the connection with ffmpeg. please elaborate.

--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-20-2010, 08:06 PM
Julien Cristau
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:04:30 +0100, Marc Leeman wrote:

> > I need pthsem, so I only want a working version with all features I
> > need.
>
> All I care about is that there is an agreement between the Debian
> community and the upstream developer. Martin is very active in
> supporting his environment and in that respect I am to inclined to
> support his decision.
>
> Can we conclude that pthsem is a valid branch, worth a seperate package?
>
> An alternative for Martin is probably to include/hide pthsem in bcusdk;
> but that would not be as clean IMHO (ffmpeg anyone?)
>
If pthsem is pth + improvements, and pth is unmaintained both upstream
and in Debian, what's the advantage of changing the library/package
name? I'm not sure we care if its homepage is at GNU or elsewhere.

Cheers,
Julien


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-20-2010, 09:23 PM
Samuel Thibault
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

Julien Cristau, le Wed 20 Jan 2010 22:06:21 +0100, a écrit :
> I'm not sure we care if its homepage is at GNU or elsewhere.

Agreed, thanks free software

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-20-2010, 09:28 PM
Samuel Thibault
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

Martin Koegler, le Wed 20 Jan 2010 23:04:07 +0100, a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 10:06:21PM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 21:04:30 +0100, Marc Leeman wrote:
> >
> > > > I need pthsem, so I only want a working version with all features I
> > > > need.
> > >
> > > All I care about is that there is an agreement between the Debian
> > > community and the upstream developer. Martin is very active in
> > > supporting his environment and in that respect I am to inclined to
> > > support his decision.
> > >
> > > Can we conclude that pthsem is a valid branch, worth a seperate package?
> > >
> > > An alternative for Martin is probably to include/hide pthsem in bcusdk;
> > > but that would not be as clean IMHO (ffmpeg anyone?)
> > >
> > If pthsem is pth + improvements, and pth is unmaintained both upstream
> > and in Debian, what's the advantage of changing the library/package
> > name? I'm not sure we care if its homepage is at GNU or elsewhere.
>
> 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.

That's why you should discuss with GNU. As said in another post, you
can just ask them to say on their website that they do not maintain it
any more, and point to your page.

> But this needs coordination with the other distributions shipping pth.

With the link mentioned above, that's no problem.

> If one of the big distributions says no and still ships GNU pth, it
> will only cause confusion.

Agreed.

> I will not call the result "GNU pth", only pth. Calling it GNU will
> probably only add restrictions/requirements, without any benefit.

Right. People often know "pth" short anyway.

Samuel


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 01-21-2010, 07:26 PM
Yavor Doganov
 
Default Bug#565675: ITP: pthsem -- pth replacement with semaphore support

Martin Koegler wrote:
> I must admit, that I have not read anything about GNU maintainers,
> but GNU has usually a bigger "philosophical overhead".

Then I suggest you to read the appropriate documenation [1] before
jumping to premature and possibly incorrect conclusions (what does the
phrase "philosophical overhead" entail?).

A fork is done when there is some kind of unresolvable
conflict/disagreement (be it technical or not). Forking is a
fundamental right, so there's nothing wrong in forking pth. But there
are too many (forked) packages in Debian, and the Debian QA team would
have to maintain the original pth package for some time at least,
which is a burden. If there are people actively working to enhance
pth, the best (for GNU, Debian, and literally everyone else) is to
take over the package upstream.

(OTOH, speaking generally, it is sad to see a package "reborn" under
another name just because the prospective new maintainer cannot
communicate successfully with the original one to negotiate the
takeover. I once again urge you to write to <maintainers@gnu.org> to
avoid this unpleasant scenario.)

[1] The gnu-standards package in Debian (both documents available also
online at http://gnu.org/prep).


--
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 05:58 AM.

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