From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 20 18:10:45 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD7811065675; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:10:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bruce@cran.org.uk) Received: from muon.cran.org.uk (brucec-1-pt.tunnel.tserv4.nyc4.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f06:c09::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 941358FC1D; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:10:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bruce@cran.org.uk) Received: from muon.cran.org.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by muon.cran.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id D08861902C; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:10:43 +0000 (GMT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on muon X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=8.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 Received: from gluon (unknown [IPv6:2a01:348:10f:0:240:f4ff:fe57:9871]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by muon.cran.org.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:10:43 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:10:36 +0000 From: Bruce Cran To: Sam Leffler Message-ID: <20090320181036.3589c284@gluon> In-Reply-To: <49C3D518.6070105@freebsd.org> References: <200903142010.n2EKAESF006945@svn.freebsd.org> <20090320140015.GA17645@hub.freebsd.org> <20090320153405.GA62675@zim.MIT.EDU> <49C3BCD4.4030605@freebsd.org> <1237567495.1993.2.camel@localhost> <49C3D518.6070105@freebsd.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.1 (GTK+ 2.15.5; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Vasil Dimov , svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Coleman Kane Subject: Re: svn commit: r189828 - in head: include sys/sys X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:10:47 -0000 On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:40:40 -0700 Sam Leffler wrote: > Coleman Kane wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 08:57 -0700, Sam Leffler wrote: > >> Dumb question, why do we need devel/pth? Isn't the native pthread > >> support sufficient? > >> > >> Sam > >> > >> > > > > For whatever reason, both security/libassuan and security/gnupg want > > pth. > > > > I was able to solve the problem by removing the "#include > > " from the offending file (there is only one) in > > devel/pth. After that, it built fine and I am using it now. > > > > Maybe devel/pth doesn't even really need to #include > > anymore.... > > > > Well a recent foray into dealing with this ports breakage made me > question why we drag in various packages. devel/pth is one example; > I see many others scroll by that appear to duplicate functionality in > the base system. At the end of the day it's clearly an issue of > maintenance overhead--we'd have to mod apps to do things like remove > use of gnu-long-opts in to switch away from things like gtar and the > savings is unclear. But I can ask... The only explanation I've found as to why gnupg requires pth and doesn't just use the OS's own pthreads implementation is at http://markmail.org/message/3euqd4xfg6e5ehc7 -- Bruce Cran