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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
