On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:40:40 -0700
Sam Leffler <s...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> Coleman Kane wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-03-20 at 08:57 -0700, Sam Leffler wrote:
> >> Dumb question, why do we need devel/pth? Isn't the native pthread
> >> support sufficient?
> >>
> >> Sam
> >>
> >>
> >
> > For whatever reason, both security/libassuan and security/gnupg want
> > pth.
> >
> > I was able to solve the problem by removing the "#include
> > <signal.h>" from the offending file (there is only one) in
> > devel/pth. After that, it built fine and I am using it now.
> >
> > Maybe devel/pth doesn't even really need to #include <signal.h>
> > anymore....
> >
>
> Well a recent foray into dealing with this ports breakage made me
> question why we drag in various packages. devel/pth is one example;
> I see many others scroll by that appear to duplicate functionality in
> the base system. At the end of the day it's clearly an issue of
> maintenance overhead--we'd have to mod apps to do things like remove
> use of gnu-long-opts in to switch away from things like gtar and the
> savings is unclear. But I can ask...
The only explanation I've found as to why gnupg requires pth and
doesn't just use the OS's
own pthreads implementation
is at http://markmail.org/message/3euqd4xfg6e5ehc7
--
Bruce Cran
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
