From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 23:09:58 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 71DDC16A4B3 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from procyon.firepipe.net (procyon.firepipe.net [198.78.66.151]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 671E243FE0 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:09:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from will@csociety.org) Received: by procyon.firepipe.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2B0AF31E97; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:09:57 -0700 From: Will Andrews To: current@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20030921060957.GP47671@procyon.firepipe.net> Mail-Followup-To: current@FreeBSD.org References: <20030920.164621.68039520.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030921022407.GA39970@rot13.obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030921022407.GA39970@rot13.obsecurity.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (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 06:09:58 -0000 On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:24:07PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote: > OK, here's what we can do to fix this: > > 1) Put back -pthread in -current so all the ports don't fail > > 2) I will build a full set of -current packages with the -pthread > error still in place, to determine the list of packages that need to > be fixed (in fact I already have this, see > http://dosirak.kr.freebsd.org/errorlogs). > > 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. > > 4) It is likely that steps 2 and 3 will need to be iterated several > times, because there are dozens of ports that need to be fixed, and > many of them are hiding other ports that depend on them and also need > to be fixed. I don't know if there is much point to #1 at this point since it's been gone for about 2 weeks now. #2/3/4 sounds fine to me. In the meantime KF is working on a patch to properly support PTHREAD_LIBS in KDE's configure scripts. We plan to commit it when the freeze lifts, pending PR #55325. I suggest that people not build ports on -CURRENT for a few weeks until things get sorted out, unless they're going to fix the problems with specific ports. Regards, -- wca