From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 12 03:50:55 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833931065674; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:50:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sakura.ninth-nine.com (ns1.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2572D8FC1B; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:50:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Received: from nadesico.ninth-nine.com (ns1.ninth-nine.com [219.127.74.121] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by sakura.ninth-nine.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/NinthNine) with ESMTP id n3C3omin005238; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:50:53 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from nork@FreeBSD.org) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:50:47 +0900 From: Norikatsu Shigemura To: David Schultz Message-Id: <20090412125047.fb6adf5a.nork@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20090412030054.GA54299@zim.MIT.EDU> References: <200904111657.n3BGvpsC092703@svn.freebsd.org> <20090411210702.ce5325b9.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20090412021841.673a200b.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20090412030054.GA54299@zim.MIT.EDU> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; i386-portbld-freebsd8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Stanislav Sedov , svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Norikatsu Shigemura Subject: Re: svn commit: r190943 - head/include X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:50:56 -0000 On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 23:00:54 -0400 > > > Can't we just put a patch in ports tree itself? What meant under 'no > > > clean solution emerged'? I can prepare a patch, if needed. > > I think so, too. I have a quick hack patch. > As I mentioned to vd@ on 3/20, I'd prefer something like > that. Does your proposed patch also work for the ports that depend > on GNU Pth, some of which may depend on signal.h? Yes, no problem! Pth required singal.h's definision(SIGINT, SIGQUIT, ...), and it was already token care in pthread.h.in like following: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - /* * Protect namespace, because possibly existing vendor Pthread stuff * would certainly conflict with our defintions of pthread*_t. */ #define pthread_t __vendor_pthread_t : #include /* for sigset_t */ : /* * Unprotect namespace, so we can define our own variants now */ #undef pthread_t : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -