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

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:

> 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).

I don't think committing fixes for -current breakages should cause
problems for 4.9-RELEASE (especially with the caveat that they be
compile tested on -stable).  Out of curiosity, what's the reason
the tag can't be laid now?  In a better world, freezing -stable
shouldn't hinder -current.

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

1, 2, and 3.  I don't think backing out -pthread change helps
much in fixing ports...

-- 
Dan Eischen