Subject: Re: why python+pth?
To: Perry E.Metzger <email@example.com>
From: Jeremy C. Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/17/2003 14:21:51
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003, Perry E.Metzger wrote:
> > Then the python is built using the native threads. (If not, let us know.)
> Why is it named "pth" then, and why isn't it the default?
I don't know. (I guess "pth" was meant to be an abbreviation of threads.)
And I don't know. It seems like it should be the default -- and I do use
it as the default on some of my systems.
The CVS log message for python21-pth/Makefile (if I paraphrase correctly)
seems to indicate that the thread support available at that time (pth,
Aug. 2002) core dumped some times, but some python packages need the
threads. So I guess it means that our python normally was not built with
threads because it was unstable.
(The jump from python-1.5.2. to python-2.0 introduced the
"--without-threads" without any note.)
I don't know how stable it is on different operating systems used with
If it is reliable now, then the threads should just be included by default
and the python*-pth could be removed.
Jeremy C. Reed