Nathan J. Williams wrote:
> Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> writes:
> 
> > I don't think that'd be a good idea. If you're using pthread.h, you're 
> > using libpthread, not threadlib.
> 
> threadlib.h is a bad hack. Why the "obvious" solution I suggested
> yesterday didn't occur to any of us when I did this in the first place
> isn't clear to me, but I'm in favor if implementing it and causing
> threadlib.h a swift death.

Yes please :)

What do we do with 2.0? IMO this is important enough to include
in the release. 

Jaromir
-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <jdolecek@NetBSD.org>            http://www.NetBSD.cz/
-=- We can walk our road together if our goals are all the same;     -=-
-=- We can run alone and free if we pursue a different aim.          -=-