Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 09:07:53PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: >> >>> I agree with all of your points. >>> >>> However, we've already established a precedent in many other cases >>> that FOSS cases can integrate without necessarily taking the same >>> steps that we would require of software developed internally. >>> >> >> But surely there are limits. Having the GNU Pth library on the system >> for other apps to link with is bad. Using the GNU Pth library in GPG is >> less bad. Why not just require that the i-team at least not deliver Pth >> compilation links, or, better, statically link Pth into GPG? >> > Does GNU Pth replace -lpthread? If so then there is a serious problem > and I'd have to suggest reopening the case. I was under the impression > that it did not interfere with applications that correctly link against > normal POSIX pthreads.
absolutely not. It does not replace -lpthread. > > Reading the manuals, it doesn't look like Pth will interfere with > applications which make correct use of POSIX threads. correct. Pth is a standalone implementation, it does not interfere with anything else on the system. -Wyllys
