On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Hi Michael, > > your #728444 hack is extremely ugly, and it is unclear how bad the > performance penalty for this hack is.
fontconfig was without pthreads for its lifetime prior to 2.11, so there won't be any performance regressions. Granted pthreads disabled may hold back a performance gain. > I am myself an xpdf user affected by this bug, but it seems clear that > there are libpoppler issues that have to be sorted out in xpdf, instead > of ugly hacks like this (that could also pup up again any day when > another library starts using pthreads). Agreed, that would be preferable, but there is no known solution yet, and I don't have a lot of free time for xpdf right now. > It does also not make much sense to push an ugly temporary hack for one > issue that is not even in fontconfig itself, while two other RC bugs > that are actually in fontconfig (#728598, #714279) stay unfixed. The logic of course is that it fixes a currently completely broken xpdf package while retaining 2.10 and prior behavior with respect to pthreads in this package. There is currently no requirement for nmus to fix all known RC issues known at the time. Maybe that idea should be suggested to developers-reference? Anyway, I understand your viewpoint, but I would prefer the maintainers to weigh in. Like I've already said, I'm completely happy to delay, alter, or cancel based on their feedback. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
