Re: ports and -current

On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:15:25PM +1000, John Birrell wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:07:15AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> > But you seem to thing -pthread == NOOP unbreaks ports ;-)
> 
> Warner might, but Kris doesn't. Kris is asking for the -pthread option
> to be restored to let -current users breath easy while the task of updating
> the ports goes on. Then he's happy for it to become a noop.
> 
> I susect theat this puts much of the work on a few people rather than many.
> I hope it doesn't require a volley of emails to each port maintainer to
> resolve each one. People have jumped off buildings for less than that!

I expect it's about a dozen man-hours of work, or so, if there's a
group of people working on the problem.  If left to the individual
maintainers to solve, it will take a lot longer in wall clock time,
and we'll probably end up with a bunch of incorrect fixes.  It should
be no trouble at all to find volunteer port committers to help with
the task.

Kris