Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 21 Sep 2003 11:48:20 -0700
From:      Tim Kientzle <kientzle@acm.org>
To:        John Birrell <jb@cimlogic.com.au>
Cc:        h@schmalzbauer.de
Subject:   Re: ports and -current
Message-ID:  <3F6DF274.3070805@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>
References:  <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309202038570.19227-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> <20030920.190533.63048335.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030921015927.GA28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> <20030920.200625.39876120.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030921021940.GB28195@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Birrell wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 08:06:25PM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>>At the very least, we should put [-pthread] 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).

Perhaps put it back as a noop with a particularly
loud warning:

"Warning: -pthread does nothing.  If this is a port, complain to the 
maintainer to fix it."

Tim



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F6DF274.3070805>