ports and -current

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309202038570.19227-100000 at pcnet5.pcnet.com>
            Daniel Eischen <eischen at vigrid.com> writes:
: 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.

Why does -pthread necessarily force selection of one specific
threading library?  All it means is that it is that the program uses
posix threads, at least traditionally.  How FreeBSD causes that to
happen is an interesting implementation detail for some, but irrelvant
for most ports.  Couldn't -pthread be made to give the user the
default threading package, and for those that matter a more specific
one can be specified?

It is insane to have FreeBSD be different than all other systems for
this trivial reason.  Why fix everthing in the world when allowing
-pthread to be a noop would solve the problem?  Seems like we're being
overly picky for no real gain.  I guess I just don't understand.

Warner