From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep 20 22:13:41 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 5994016A4B3; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:13:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8654E43FDD; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:13:40 -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 h8L5DagG002518;
	Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:13:36 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:13:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030920.230205.88963117.imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210110000.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: DougB@freebsd.org
cc: current@freebsd.org
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
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 05:13:41 -0000

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210041350.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
>             Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> writes:
> : I'd like to see some barking up the other tree.  Why should fixes
> : to unbreak ports be held up by the freeze?
> 
> Because the ports folks do not want random changes going into the tree
> right now given that they have enough build problems on 4.9 related to
> GNOME.

Oddly enough, the GNOME ports are supposedly pretty much PTHREAD_LIBS
compliant.  It's really the KDE ports that have the brunt of the
problems.  Oh, yeah, and they just updated QT and KDE to the latest
releases.  I suppose that's OK, but committing fixes to unbreak
them on -current isn't.

-- 
Dan Eischen