Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:46:34 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> To: John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <20030924104634.GG22622@starjuice.net> In-Reply-To: <20030924101829.GG44314@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> References: <3F70D4EB.1080604@gmx.net> <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309231920460.24353-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <20030924095153.GE22622@starjuice.net> <20030924101829.GG44314@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On (2003/09/24 20:18), John Birrell 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-) That's really, REALLY good news. Will Andrews recently posted a patch on -current and mentioned that -pthread is back but will go away again soon. Can I relax and disregard his comment? :-) > > 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? I'm happy with -pthread providing a simple default, which I can override if I think I know what my software really wants. :-) Ciao, Sheldon.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030924104634.GG22622>