Re: ports and -current

From: M. Warner Losh <>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:44:25 -0600 (MDT)
In message: <>
            John Birrell <> 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

: 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

Received on Sat Sep 20 2003 - 17:44:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:23 UTC