Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)

From: Daniel Eischen <>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:27:31 -0400 (EDT)
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 02:03:40PM +1000, John Birrell wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:24:07PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > OK, so what's the commit procedure going to be? This could generate an
> > awful lot of little PRs.
> Call for volunteers, take the list of failed ports from dosirak and
> divide it up between yourselves, then mark off the ports as fixes are
> developed.  The fixes can be committed once the freeze is over (and
> they are demonstrated not to break on 4.x).
> There's no reason this needs to be coordinated through GNATS, and
> indeed that would probably be counter-productive.  Since it won't be
> affecting people outside the testing group who continue to run a gcc
> that treats -pthread as an error, duplicate or bogus PRs won't be
> generated by people who aren't in the loop.
> > Scot posted a patch for Is that going to be committed?
> > That's needed.
> Sure, if it works.  I can test it once the current 5.x build finishes
> on dosirak.
> > Are you prepared to unlock the ports tree and allow a blanket commit auth
> > for commits that only change patch-configure? That should catch most of
> > the simple cases.
> I'm unsure of the current status - the original schedule called for
> the ports tree to be tagged yesterday, but now the schedule has
> slipped.  marcus is in charge of this release, so he'll have to
> comment on the updated timeline.  However, we need to be careful not
> to destabilize 4.9 in committing hasty and poorly-tested fixes for
> problems on -current that do not also work on 4.x (this is
> unfortunately a common occurrence).
> At any rate, 4.9 will be released sooner or later, and in following
> step 1) of my proposal the only people the freeze will continue to
> affect are those who are working on fixing the -pthread issues, which
> can be kept in private repositories for a week or two.  For everyone
> else, ports that use -pthread will go back to working again (modulo
> pre-existing compile failures).

Because -pthread has broken ports, fixes are already being
and have been developed.  Just unfreeze the tree or give
permission to commit -current breakage fixes (with the
caveat they are compile tested on -stable).

Dan Eischen
Received on Sat Sep 20 2003 - 20:27:46 UTC

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