On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:42 PM, Wyllys Ingersoll wrote: > [...] > > The changes being discussed for Pth are not bug fixes or build > modifications, > they are a change in the entire design of the library. The whole > point of > Pth is to be a "Portable" thread library that is self-contained and > does > not depend on any other thread libraries. Even if the changes being > discussed > really are "low hanging fruit", it still amounts to violating the > goals > and intent of the package as far as I can tell. > > The real "fix" (if you can call it that, since nothing is actually > broken in > its current state) would be to modify the consumers of Pth (GnuPG in > this case) > to use the native code and eliminate the need for Pth. I will > investigate > the level of difficulty in doing just that, but I am not going to > rewrite Pth > to use Solaris threads just because we think ours is better > (regardless of whether > or not it really is) especially if the code already "just works".
If you consider the Pth library an API (reasonable?) then what I was suggesting is to provide a replacement compatible with the "Pth API" but using Solaris threads (and possibly no Pth code). I don't see as much value in trying to push upstream changes to GnuPG to make it use some other API. You'd have to do that for every such package that was written to the Pth API. Gordon
