Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:44:25 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: jb@cimlogic.com.au Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports and -current Message-ID: <20030920.204425.25098720.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> References: <20030921015927.GA28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> <20030920.200625.39876120.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au> writes:
: On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:06:25PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > But it was completely removed. That sounds like the consensus wasn't
: > followed. Why was it then removed?
:
: It got discussed a bit more after the removal. That was the time when the
: GCC people got involved. The discussions where on FreeBSD public lists.
Yes. However, it is clear that the pain level wasn't adequately
disclosed at the time of the removal.
: > So we change -pthread to mean "link in the default threading package,
: > with whatever magic is necessary for that package" rather than "link
: > in libc_r instead of libc".
:
: A better way is to just link to the thread package you want. Keep knowledge
: of thread libraries outside GCC. There really is nothing simpler that
: adding -lc_r or -lpthread or -lmyownthreadlib. No magic required.
Works for me.
: > Then why was it completely removed?
:
: Dan removed it because it wasn't needed and nobody said anything otherwise.
Time has proven the "not needed" part was premature.
: > At the very least, we should put it back as a noop. The timing on
: > this really sucks because it breaks the ports tree for an extended
: > period of time. While the fixes are simple, they haven't been made
: > yet. The fact that the tree is frozen makes it seem like a really bad
: > time to make the change.
:
: Yes, I think it should go back as a noop (mostly to satisfy the GCC
: people though).
Sounds like we're in violent agreement.
: It sucks that the 4.9 pre-release instability has been so severe. It bit
: me so much I ended up using current instead. Major functionality changes
: to things like VM shouldn't be made so late in a branch. It is a point
: *NINE* release after all.
The problem is that they put an experimental feature into the tree in
a way that wasn't a noop for non-users of that feature. This was done
because it would be more painful to make it a complete noop. I've
said a few times that if PAE isn't ready for 4.9, it should be backed
out and firmed up for 4.10, but re seems to think it is a must have
feature in 4.9.
FWIW, I'm running today's RELENG_4 w/o PAE. I'll see if there are big
issues.
: Unfreeze the ports tree then! I'm not a ports committer, but I'm willing
: to help out fixing the problems on -current if that would help. Lets
: go forward, not back.
I'll let the portmgr folks comment on this. I think this is a good
idea.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030920.204425.25098720.imp>