From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 22:44:40 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8998416A4B3 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:44:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D99843FBF for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:44:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com) Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4]) by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id h8L5iZgG006717; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 01:44:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com To: Kris Kennaway In-Reply-To: <20030921053059.GA40776@rot13.obsecurity.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: current@freebsd.org cc: "M. Warner Losh" cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: deischen@freebsd.org List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 05:44:40 -0000 On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:04:49AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > 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@schmalzbauer.de> > > > > > Harald Schmalzbauer 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. > > Daniel, this is most unhelpful. We're a week or two way from > releasing 4.9-RELEASE, and unfreezing now would lead to guaranteed > problems for the release (recall the point of having ports freezes in > the first place). I don't think committing fixes for -current breakages should cause problems for 4.9-RELEASE (especially with the caveat that they be compile tested on -stable). Out of curiosity, what's the reason the tag can't be laid now? In a better world, freezing -stable shouldn't hinder -current. > What, precisely, do you object to in the above proposal? 1, 2, and 3. I don't think backing out -pthread change helps much in fixing ports... -- Dan Eischen