On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:48:24AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Martin Koegler, le Tue 19 Jan 2010 09:27:07 +0100, a écrit : > > Samuel Thibault <sthiba...@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?
pth and pthsem can be installed in parallel, as they use different filenames (pth.h+libpth.so* / pthsem.h/libpthsem.so*). Both packages use the same symol names in their libraries. The libpthsem-compat provides/conflicts libpth-dev. It contains stub files for pth.m4, pth.h and pth-config, which "redirect" to the pthsem files. Software built with libpthsem-compat installed will link against libpthsem. My intention was not to replace pth, but to provide a migration path. > Were I Martin Kögler, I'd even just request GNU to become the new > maintainer of pth. I must admit, that I have not read anything about GNU maintainers, but GNU has usually a bigger "philosophical overhead". I need pthsem, so I only want a working version with all features I need. Regards, Martin Kögler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
