From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 12 04:02:24 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572491065670; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:02:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (ZIM.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.101]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E2648FC1C; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:02:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.3/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n3C43hmk054883; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:03:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: (from das@localhost) by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.3/8.14.2/Submit) id n3C43h6O054882; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:03:43 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from das@FreeBSD.ORG) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:03:43 -0400 From: David Schultz To: Norikatsu Shigemura Message-ID: <20090412040343.GA54862@zim.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: Norikatsu Shigemura , Stanislav Sedov , svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG References: <200904111657.n3BGvpsC092703@svn.freebsd.org> <20090411210702.ce5325b9.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20090412021841.673a200b.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20090412030054.GA54299@zim.MIT.EDU> <20090412125047.fb6adf5a.nork@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090412125047.fb6adf5a.nork@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Stanislav Sedov , svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG, src-committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: svn commit: r190943 - head/include X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:02:25 -0000 On Sun, Apr 12, 2009, Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:00:54 -0400 > > > > Can't we just put a patch in ports tree itself? What meant under 'no > > > > clean solution emerged'? I can prepare a patch, if needed. > > > I think so, too. I have a quick hack patch. > > As I mentioned to vd@ on 3/20, I'd prefer something like > > that. Does your proposed patch also work for the ports that depend > > on GNU Pth, some of which may depend on signal.h? > > Yes, no problem! Pth required singal.h's definision(SIGINT, > SIGQUIT, ...), and it was already token care in pthread.h.in > like following: > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > /* > * Protect namespace, because possibly existing vendor Pthread stuff > * would certainly conflict with our defintions of pthread*_t. > */ > #define pthread_t __vendor_pthread_t > : > #include /* for sigset_t */ > : > /* > * Unprotect namespace, so we can define our own variants now > */ > #undef pthread_t > : > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I don't understand how this is related to the problem; signal.h and sys/signal.h are not the same header, nor does one include the other.