Quo vadis, -CURRENT? (recent changes to cc & compatibility)
Daniel Eischen
eischen at vigrid.com
Wed Sep 10 13:05:56 PDT 2003
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> Sorry if this sounds a bit flame-ish, but the way I see it we now have a
> system compiler in -CURRENT that doesn't even compile a hello world if
> -pedantic is specified and breaks with lots of existing software out there
> that tries to use a threads library because -pthread errors out (why could
> this change not have been made _after_ 4.9 is out the door, btw.? Or before
> 5.0-R FWIW.)
It should have been made 2 years ago, a few months after libc_r
became disconnected from libc. There was a whole thread about
how ports should be using PTHREAD_LIBS and not using -pthread.
Here is the link:
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=629118+0+archive/2001/freebsd-current/20010218.freebsd-current
As to the timing; it had to happen soon. We need time to
iron out the problems before 5.2-RELEASE. This was the
first step; there may be a little more pain in the future
but this needed to be addressed first.
> Are we expecting people to be able to compile software directly from the
> commandline at all these days and in the future on a (stable) FreeBSD-5?
>
> Is the decision criterion for making acceptable changes to core system
> components that we can somehow make 3rd party software compiling via
> ports-collection hacks?
Things need to get worse before they can get better. If
I didn't break -pthread, ports@ would have a harder time
trying to make things build with a threading library that
is selectable via PTHREAD_LIBS. We've had 2.5 years to
do this, but now it needs to get done before 5.2-RELEASE.
> I feel that a FreeBSD that manages to break so many existing configure-scripts
> and build systems is degraded in usefulness.
Please, this is -current. If you want less pain then stick
with -stable and you won't be annoyed by the -pthread removal.
--
Dan Eischen
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list