Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:49:24 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: kientzle@acm.org Cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: ports and -current Message-ID: <20030921.124924.59075093.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <3F6DF274.3070805@acm.org> References: <20030920.200625.39876120.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> <3F6DF274.3070805@acm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <3F6DF274.3070805@acm.org>
Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org> writes:
: John Birrell wrote:
: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:06:25PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: >>At the very least, we should put [-pthread] back as a noop. The timing on
: >>this really sucks because it breaks the ports tree for an extended
: >>period of time. While the fixes are simple, they haven't been made
: >>yet. The fact that the tree is frozen makes it seem like a really bad
: >>time to make the change.
: >
: >
: > Yes, I think it should go back as a noop (mostly to satisfy the GCC
: > people though).
:
: Perhaps put it back as a noop with a particularly
: loud warning:
:
: "Warning: -pthread does nothing. If this is a port, complain to the
: maintainer to fix it."
Maybe we should just stick to the plan that Kris and Daniel worked
out?
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030921.124924.59075093.imp>