Scott Rotondo 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?
>>
>
> In an ideal world, Solaris would include a Pth library (in order to
> link and run programs that expect it) that is written to run
> efficiently on Solaris (by being a very thin wrapper around libpthread).
>
> As a bare minimum, could the project team at least file an RFE
> documenting the desire to replace the Pth library with a smaller, more
> efficient implementation?
I don't think this is a good idea... see Joerg's and my mail --
applications developed for Pth might rely on the specific implementation
details that replacing it with actual pthreads (even under the covers)
might expose problems with applications.
- Garrett
>
> Scott
>
