ports and -current

[John Birrell]

On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:06:25PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> But it was completely removed.  That sounds like the consensus wasn't
> followed.  Why was it then removed?

It got discussed a bit more after the removal. That was the time when the
GCC people got involved. The discussions where on FreeBSD public lists.

> So we change -pthread to mean "link in the default threading package,
> with whatever magic is necessary for that package" rather than "link
> in libc_r instead of libc".

A better way is to just link to the thread package you want. Keep knowledge
of thread libraries outside GCC. There really is nothing simpler that
adding -lc_r or -lpthread or -lmyownthreadlib. No magic required.

> Then why was it completely removed?

Dan removed it because it wasn't needed and nobody said anything otherwise.

> At the very least, we should put it back as a noop.  The timing on
> this really sucks because it breaks the ports tree for an extended
> period of time.  While the fixes are simple, they haven't been made
> yet.  The fact that the tree is frozen makes it seem like a really bad
> time to make the change.

Yes, I think it should go back as a noop (mostly to satisfy the GCC
people though).

It sucks that the 4.9 pre-release instability has been so severe. It bit
me so much I ended up using current instead. Major functionality changes
to things like VM shouldn't be made so late in a branch. It is a point
*NINE* release after all.

Unfreeze the ports tree then! I'm not a ports committer, but I'm willing
to help out fixing the problems on -current if that would help. Lets
go forward, not back.

-- 
John Birrell