From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 21:46:35 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 0C89416A4B3; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3533043FF3; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:46:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h8L4kUgG028406; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:46:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:46:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <20030920175306.Q9576@znfgre.qbhto.arg> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: ports and -current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org 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 04:46:35 -0000 On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Doug Barton wrote: > 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 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. This is the longest ports freeze that I can remember. I wasn't expecting it to last long. Not to change the subject, I thought it would just be long enough to lay the tag. I don't think you should label it as bad timing as much as asking why the freeze is taking so long. > 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. I'd like to see some barking up the other tree. Why should fixes to unbreak ports be held up by the freeze? -- Dan Eischen