From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 22:27:46 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 E3B8416A4B3 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BBCD43FE5 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:27:44 -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 h8L5RVgG004405; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:27:31 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:27:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Kris Kennaway In-Reply-To: <20030921042207.GA40487@rot13.obsecurity.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: "M. Warner Losh" cc: current@freebsd.org cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (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 05:27:47 -0000 On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:03:40PM +1000, John Birrell wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:24:07PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > > 3) You, John Birrell, and whoever else is interested in fixing these > > > ports can work on them at your own pace without disrupting life for > > > the rest of the users. Once they're all fixed, we can turn the error > > > back on or make it a NOP or do whatever else is decided to be > > > appropriate. > > > > OK, so what's the commit procedure going to be? This could generate an > > awful lot of little PRs. > > Call for volunteers, take the list of failed ports from dosirak and > divide it up between yourselves, then mark off the ports as fixes are > developed. The fixes can be committed once the freeze is over (and > they are demonstrated not to break on 4.x). > > There's no reason this needs to be coordinated through GNATS, and > indeed that would probably be counter-productive. Since it won't be > affecting people outside the testing group who continue to run a gcc > that treats -pthread as an error, duplicate or bogus PRs won't be > generated by people who aren't in the loop. > > > Scot posted a patch for bsd.port.mk. Is that going to be committed? > > That's needed. > > Sure, if it works. I can test it once the current 5.x build finishes > on dosirak. > > > Are you prepared to unlock the ports tree and allow a blanket commit auth > > for commits that only change patch-configure? That should catch most of > > the simple cases. > > I'm unsure of the current status - the original schedule called for > the ports tree to be tagged yesterday, but now the schedule has > slipped. marcus is in charge of this release, so he'll have to > comment on the updated timeline. However, we need to be careful not > to destabilize 4.9 in committing hasty and poorly-tested fixes for > problems on -current that do not also work on 4.x (this is > unfortunately a common occurrence). > > At any rate, 4.9 will be released sooner or later, and in following > step 1) of my proposal the only people the freeze will continue to > affect are those who are working on fixing the -pthread issues, which > can be kept in private repositories for a week or two. For everyone > else, ports that use -pthread will go back to working again (modulo > pre-existing compile failures). Because -pthread has broken ports, fixes are already being and have been developed. Just unfreeze the tree or give permission to commit -current breakage fixes (with the caveat they are compile tested on -stable). -- Dan Eischen