Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 23:35:40 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <20030921063540.GA41190@rot13.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210157160.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <20030921055453.GA40942@rot13.obsecurity.org> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210157160.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:12:55AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote: >=20 > > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:44:35AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > What, precisely, do you object to in the above proposal? > > >=20 > > > 1, 2, and 3. I don't think backing out -pthread change helps > > > much in fixing ports... > >=20 > > Again, why? Please explain instead of asserting, because that's > > getting us nowhere towards resolving this. >=20 > 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. What's the real issue here? It seems like you're suggesting that it's not your responsibility to help fix the broken ports, and that other people should do the work instead. > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=3D321307+0+archive/2003/fr= eebsd-ports/20030601.freebsd-ports >=20 > my posting to ports@ in May of this year. That change doesn't seem to have happened, or to be the same thing we're discussing here. Anyway, if you'd been interested in pre-empting problems with the -pthread change you could have asked me to do a package build with the change in place to test the waters, and then worked with me and others to minimize the impact at the time when the commit went in. I routinely do this with other committers (including the gcc imports), and I'm happy to continue doing so. However, the strategy of just dumping a change into the tree and then leaving it to others to clean up the mess is not a good one - it's disruptive to the development cycle, it causes developers to get bogged down in arguments like we find ourselves having now, and the bottom line is that it's just not very polite to the people that your change affects. > 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? No, kan and I worked together before the change went in to evaluate the impact on packages, then I coordinated a group of volunteers to help fix the resulting fallout. I'm trying to do the same thing now. Are you willing to be part of the solution to this problem? Kris --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/bUa8Wry0BWjoQKURAtyCAJ97YdEJU3LmhN5f+kwzzWTcMjmk5ACg6Klp kWOZtS2z562FbvUHiRyBgJ0= =3Aj2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --envbJBWh7q8WU6mo--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030921063540.GA41190>