Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:51:53 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> To: deischen@freebsd.org Cc: Freebsd Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <20030924095153.GE22622@starjuice.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309231920460.24353-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> References: <3F70D4EB.1080604@gmx.net> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309231920460.24353-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On (2003/09/23 19:35), Daniel Eischen wrote:
> The applications is free to link to whatever it wants;
> we're not changing that. If it wants to link to 1:1
> libthr or whatever, then it had better be sure to use
> -lthr because -pthread won't do it regardless of whether
> it is a NOOP or not.
Okay, so what are we supposed to do to ports that are now broken because
-pthread doesn't exist (e.g. devel/pwlib)?
This discussion has gone around in circles and I haven't read every
message, but it's pretty obvious there's a lot of confusion.
Is there a simple rule we should follow when trying to fix ports, or do
we have to think now? At the moment, I'm just patching configure files
to use ${PTHREAD_LIBS} instead of -pthread, and pushing PTHREAD_LIBS
into the ports' CONFIGURE_ENV.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030924095153.GE22622>