Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)

[Daniel Eischen]

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.

-- 
Dan Eischen