Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 02:12:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: h@schmalzbauer.de Subject: Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current) Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210157160.26520-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20030921055453.GA40942@rot13.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 01:44:35AM -0400, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > 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... > > Again, why? Please explain instead of asserting, because that's > getting us nowhere towards resolving this. Because when things break, people fix them. There is no motivation (as seen in the last 2+ years) to fix something that isn't broken. Please also see: http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=321307+0+archive/2003/freebsd-ports/20030601.freebsd-ports my posting to ports@ in May of this year. When the GCC-3.3 import broke a lot of ports, did you ask for it to be backed out so that ports could first be fixed? Yeah, OK, we're in a ports freeze, so that's different now. But once the freeze is lifted, I don't see a need to keep -pthread in (assuming it was added back for the freeze). -- Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10309210157160.26520-100000>