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

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:04:49AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> 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: <3F6BF02F.9040707_at_schmalzbauer.de>
> > > >             Harald Schmalzbauer <h_at_schmalzbauer.de> 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.

Daniel, this is most unhelpful.  We're a week or two way from
releasing 4.9-RELEASE, and unfreezing now would lead to guaranteed
problems for the release (recall the point of having ports freezes in
the first place).

What, precisely, do you object to in the above proposal?

Kris