From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep 21 11:49:50 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 356BB16A4B3; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:49:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 4DC0943FE9; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from localhost (warner@rover2.village.org [10.0.0.1])
	by harmony.village.org (8.12.9p1/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h8LInOGA027930;
	Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:49:24 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:49:24 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20030921.124924.59075093.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: kientzle@acm.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <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>
X-Mailer: Mew version 2.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: deischen@freebsd.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: h@schmalzbauer.de
Subject: Re: ports and -current
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:49:50 -0000

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