Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:59:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <DougB@FreeBSD.org> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: ports and -current Message-ID: <20030920175306.Q9576@znfgre.qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309202038570.19227-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309202038570.19227-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>
> > In message: <3F6BF02F.9040707@schmalzbauer.de>
> > Harald Schmalzbauer <h@schmalzbauer.de> writes:
> > : Not only the -pthread removement broke countless ports (some of them are
> >
> > Maybe I missed the reason why FreeBSD needs to be unique wrt threading
> > programs and not have -pthread...
>
> Because -pthread allows selection of one specific threadling library,
> not multiple. It is also unnecessary since the library is specified
> as a link option, not a compiler option. In the future, -pthread
> will be a NOOP, but it suits us now to have it cause an error so
> that ports that don't honor PTHREAD_LIBS can be found and fixed.
IF this is a good idea (and I'm not convinced it is), I still have two
major objections to it. First, this action was taken with very little
(any?) discussion. Second, the timing is truly horrible, occurring
during a ports freeze.
If your goal is actually to find and fix broken ports, there are a LOT
of other options, including enlisting volunteers, and using the package
building cluster.
I'd really like to see this change backed out, at minimum until the
ports freeze is over.
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030920175306.Q9576>