From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 19:17:40 2003 Return-Path: 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 DA50216A4B3; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cimlogic.com.au (cimlog.lnk.telstra.net [139.130.51.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB5F843FFD; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:17:36 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jb@cimlogic.com.au) Received: from freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cimlogic.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8L2Jfvl031208; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:19:41 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from jb@cimlogic.com.au) Received: (from jb@localhost) by freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8L2Jem0031207; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:19:41 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:19:40 +1000 From: John Birrell To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> References: <20030920.190533.63048335.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030921015927.GA28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> <20030920.200625.39876120.imp@bsdimp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030920.200625.39876120.imp@bsdimp.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: deischen@freebsd.org cc: h@schmalzbauer.de cc: current@freebsd.org 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:17:41 -0000 On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:06:25PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > But it was completely removed. That sounds like the consensus wasn't > followed. Why was it then removed? It got discussed a bit more after the removal. That was the time when the GCC people got involved. The discussions where on FreeBSD public lists. > So we change -pthread to mean "link in the default threading package, > with whatever magic is necessary for that package" rather than "link > in libc_r instead of libc". A better way is to just link to the thread package you want. Keep knowledge of thread libraries outside GCC. There really is nothing simpler that adding -lc_r or -lpthread or -lmyownthreadlib. No magic required. > Then why was it completely removed? Dan removed it because it wasn't needed and nobody said anything otherwise. > At the very least, we should put it 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). It sucks that the 4.9 pre-release instability has been so severe. It bit me so much I ended up using current instead. Major functionality changes to things like VM shouldn't be made so late in a branch. It is a point *NINE* release after all. Unfreeze the ports tree then! I'm not a ports committer, but I'm willing to help out fixing the problems on -current if that would help. Lets go forward, not back. -- John Birrell