On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 12:34:56PM -0500, Shawn Walker 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? > > I'm sure there are other bits of FOSS software that use the GNU Pth > library. While I too would like to see software we ship use the better > threading library, isn't at least justifiable that GNU Pth be shipped to > make it easier to compile and use FOSS that is not provided by Sun?
If the i-team (or another) is willing to make GNU Pth work with native Solaris threads, great, make GNU Pth available. Don claims that GNU Pth does not do that. If the i-team is not willing to make it so, then it ought not be made available for others to consume. Nico --
