Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 20:18:29 +1000 From: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <20030924101829.GG44314@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> In-Reply-To: <20030924095153.GE22622@starjuice.net> References: <3F70D4EB.1080604@gmx.net> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309231920460.24353-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <20030924095153.GE22622@starjuice.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 11:51:53AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Okay, so what are we supposed to do to ports that are now broken because
> -pthread doesn't exist (e.g. devel/pwlib)?
-pthread is back in current. It just had a little holiday. It's back,
refreshed, eager and willing to do the deed. 8-)
> Is there a simple rule we should follow when trying to fix ports, or do
> we have to think now?
Someone has to think and make a decision. Is simplicity (the -pthread switch)
reason enough to support one thread library by default?
> 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.
I don't think that CONFIGURE_ENV should be modified in each port's makefile
to cope with PTHREAD_LIBS. It's supposed to be a ports-wide thing, so it
belongs in bsd.port.mk.
--
John Birrell
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030924101829.GG44314>