Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)
From: Sheldon Hearn (sheldonh_at_starjuice.net)
Date: 09/24/03
- Previous message: Will Andrews: "KDE 3.1.4 on 5.1-CURRENT fixes for PTHREAD_LIBS"
- In reply to: Daniel Eischen: "Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)"
- Next in thread: John Birrell: "Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)"
- Reply: John Birrell: "Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 11:51:53 +0200 To: deischen@freebsd.org
On (2003/09/23 19:35), Daniel Eischen wrote:
> The applications is free to link to whatever it wants;
> we're not changing that. If it wants to link to 1:1
> libthr or whatever, then it had better be sure to use
> -lthr because -pthread won't do it regardless of whether
> it is a NOOP or not.
Okay, so what are we supposed to do to ports that are now broken because
-pthread doesn't exist (e.g. devel/pwlib)?
This discussion has gone around in circles and I haven't read every
message, but it's pretty obvious there's a lot of confusion.
Is there a simple rule we should follow when trying to fix ports, or do
we have to think now? At the moment, I'm just patching configure files
to use ${PTHREAD_LIBS} instead of -pthread, and pushing PTHREAD_LIBS
into the ports' CONFIGURE_ENV.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Will Andrews: "KDE 3.1.4 on 5.1-CURRENT fixes for PTHREAD_LIBS"
- In reply to: Daniel Eischen: "Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)"
- Next in thread: John Birrell: "Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)"
- Reply: John Birrell: "Re: Fixing -pthreads (Re: ports and -current)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
