Frederick Bruckman wrote:

> The cleanest way would probably be to add a CONFIGURE_ARG to the
> package Makefile. I'll look at now.

  Hmm, to me, it looks like pthread checking is done unconditionally,
but if you find a CONFIGURE_ARG, that would be 'nicer' than having a
patch.  Just in case, I have attached my patch-aa that's removing this
check ...

> I'm building pth now, to try and reproduce the problem. So now, why is
> there a pth-current that's two revisions older than pth? Isn't it
> about time pth-current went into the Attic?

  Well, since there actually is a newer development pth out there, we
should rather update our pth-current package.  Any takers? ;-)

  Cheers
      ,
   Rene