From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 19:44:32 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 9607B16A4B3; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from harmony.village.org (rover.bsdimp.com [204.144.255.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7526B43FD7; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 19:44:31 -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 h8L2iOGA018635; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:44:24 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:44:25 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20030920.204425.25098720.imp@bsdimp.com> To: jb@cimlogic.com.au From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> References: <20030921015927.GA28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> <20030920.200625.39876120.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> 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: 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 02:44:32 -0000 In message: <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> John Birrell writes: : 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. Yes. However, it is clear that the pain level wasn't adequately disclosed at the time of the removal. : > 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. Works for me. : > Then why was it completely removed? : : Dan removed it because it wasn't needed and nobody said anything otherwise. Time has proven the "not needed" part was premature. : > 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). Sounds like we're in violent agreement. : 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. The problem is that they put an experimental feature into the tree in a way that wasn't a noop for non-users of that feature. This was done because it would be more painful to make it a complete noop. I've said a few times that if PAE isn't ready for 4.9, it should be backed out and firmed up for 4.10, but re seems to think it is a must have feature in 4.9. FWIW, I'm running today's RELENG_4 w/o PAE. I'll see if there are big issues. : 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. I'll let the portmgr folks comment on this. I think this is a good idea. Warner