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? > > Scott >
Wouldn't the logical replacement for Pth be libpthread or Solaris threads? Why bother even attempting to write a new thread library when we have viable alternatives? The goal should be to eliminate the need for Pth in the programs that use it if possible. -Wyllys
