mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Nick Hudson wrote:
> 
> > mcmahill@mtl.mit.edu wrote:
> > >
[snip]
> > > this has some problems we've run into.  However, the change to
> > > basesrc/lib/csu/c++/Makefile (which is actually what makes
> > > /usr/lib/c++rt0.o be -fPIC vs pic), _should_ (I think) be ok.
> >
> > I see that you made this change to the head branch. Did you request a
> > pull up for the 1.4 branch? Do you want me to send the request?
> 
> yes, but with the request that we test that sparc can still rebuild netbsd
> and the bsd.lib.mk change broke that.  There has been discussion about the
> other change for 1.4, but I don't know what was decided by the portmaster
> whose better judgment I would defer to.

OK. I'm happy to wait for the portmaster's decision. It sounds as though
the basesrc/lib/csu/c++/Makefile change is pretty well tested though :-)

[snip]
> >
> > I would agree its alot of packages, but I'd rather see things marked as
> > broken if they are known to be.
> 
> right, but by replacing that 1 file, all but one of the broken ones become
> non-broken and there are really a ton of broken ones.

Let's hope that the above change is in 1.4.3

Nick