From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 14 10:55:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA10184 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:55:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA10178 for ; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:55:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA04019; Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:54:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) To: Peter van Heusden cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Detecting the presence of threads (for a port) In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 14 Jul 1998 15:42:15 +0200." Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:54:21 -0700 Message-ID: <4015.900438861@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > 2) Should pthreads be required in the default port? Since they are not > available with an out-of-the-box 2.2 FreeBSD, I assume not, in which case > I'd have to break the pthread patches out into a seperate set of files, > and only apply them if a particular make variable is set. Does this make > sense? You could always wimp out on this one and simply stop if you don't find a libc_r in the obvious place, telling the user to go compile that bit and come back. 2.2.7, due in just 7 days now (eek!), will have it by default and, of course, 3.0 does as well so relying on it just being installed is not as bad as it sounds. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message