From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Sep 20 23:12:59 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 AD95A16A4B3
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923B243F85
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:12:58 -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 h8L6CtgG010507;
	Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:12:55 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:12:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030921055453.GA40942@rot13.obsecurity.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210157160.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: current@freebsd.org
cc: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
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
	<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 06:12:59 -0000

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:44:35AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > > What, precisely, do you object to in the above proposal?
> > 
> > 1, 2, and 3.  I don't think backing out -pthread change helps
> > much in fixing ports...
> 
> Again, why?  Please explain instead of asserting, because that's
> getting us nowhere towards resolving this.

Because when things break, people fix them.  There is no
motivation (as seen in the last 2+ years) to fix something
that isn't broken.

Please also see:

  http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=321307+0+archive/2003/freebsd-ports/20030601.freebsd-ports

my posting to ports@ in May of this year.

When the GCC-3.3 import broke a lot of ports, did you ask for it to
be backed out so that ports could first be fixed?  Yeah, OK, we're
in a ports freeze, so that's different now.  But once the freeze
is lifted, I don't see a need to keep -pthread in (assuming it
was added back for the freeze).

-- 
Dan Eischen