On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:43:18PM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > > > > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Harald Schmalzbauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > : Not only the -pthread removement broke countless ports (some of them are > > > > > > Maybe I missed the reason why FreeBSD needs to be unique wrt threading > > > programs and not have -pthread... > > > > Because -pthread allows selection of one specific threadling library, > > not multiple. It is also unnecessary since the library is specified > > as a link option, not a compiler option. In the future, -pthread > > will be a NOOP, but it suits us now to have it cause an error so > > that ports that don't honor PTHREAD_LIBS can be found and fixed. > > OK, here's what we can do to fix this: > > 1) Put back -pthread in -current so all the ports don't fail > > 2) I will build a full set of -current packages with the -pthread > error still in place, to determine the list of packages that need to > be fixed (in fact I already have this, see > http://dosirak.kr.freebsd.org/errorlogs). > > 3) You, John Birrell, and whoever else is interested in fixing these > ports can work on them at your own pace without disrupting life for > the rest of the users. Once they're all fixed, we can turn the error > back on or make it a NOP or do whatever else is decided to be > appropriate. > > 4) It is likely that steps 2 and 3 will need to be iterated several > times, because there are dozens of ports that need to be fixed, and > many of them are hiding other ports that depend on them and also need > to be fixed.
Just unfreeze the ports tree and allow broken ports to be fixed. Problem solved. -- Dan Eischen _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
