Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:31:13 -0400 From: Alexander Kabaev <kabaev@gmail.com> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r190943 - head/include Message-ID: <20090411133113.79863e2c@kan.dnsalias.net> In-Reply-To: <20090411210702.ce5325b9.stas@FreeBSD.org> References: <200904111657.n3BGvpsC092703@svn.freebsd.org> <20090411210702.ce5325b9.stas@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:07:02 +0400 Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:57:51 +0000 (UTC) > David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > > > Author: das > > Date: Sat Apr 11 16:57:50 2009 > > New Revision: 190943 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/190943 > > > > Log: > > GNU Pth has some fragile kludges that were broken by r189828. > > I've discussed this with the Pth maintainer and no clear solution > > has emerged on the ports side of things, so for now, hack around > > the issue in signal.h. > > > > Can't we just put a patch in ports tree itself? What meant under 'no > clean solution emerged'? I can prepare a patch, if needed. > I strongly support this argument. Putting port-specific hacks into system include files is horrible idea. - -- Alexander Kabaev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFJ4NPlQ6z1jMm+XZYRAk8hAKDUvCB7jb+/w63jFB+GThAlqFkJYgCgsTUV W8AGNvuXoA5WUc93GptDxYY= =bk0W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090411133113.79863e2c>