> 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?)

--
greetz, marc
Radioactive cats have 18 half-lives.
crichton 2.6.26 #1 PREEMPT Tue Jul 29 21:17:59 CDT 2008 GNU/Linux

> (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.)

Don't read to much into this; 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).

OK, sent a short note to maintainers@gnu.org. I'll keep the list updated
about the progress.

--
greetz, marc
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
crichton 2.6.26 #1 PREEMPT Tue Jul 29 21:17:59 CDT 2008 GNU/Linux