[patch] Don't add PTH include path to gpgme's CFLAGS globally

[Marcus Brinkmann]

Michael Nottebrock <lofi at freebsd.org> schrieb:
> On Wednesday, 14. February 2007 15:06, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:

> > Let's go through this one by one:

> > 1) If Pth installs pthread.h even if --disable-pthread is given on
> >    the
> > configure command line, I think that's a bug.

> Agreed, that would be a bug (but doesn't happen).

Ok, thanks for letting me know about that.

> > 2) If you build Pth with --enable-pthread on a system with native
> > pthread support, I think that's a bug.

> I don't.

> The FreeBSD port used to set --enable-pthread and
> --enable-syscall-soft
> or --enable-syscall-hard --disable-syscall-soft, with the former
> being the
> default (since a few days, these two configurations are separate
> ports).

I am really interested in learning why you build Pth with --enable-pthread.

> > With which of these three statements (if any) do you disagree?

> In my book you're declaring a feature a bug in order to avoid fixing
> one.

I understand that this is your opinion, but I have insufficient information to
come to the same conclusion.  In particular, I have yet not heard about any
reason why one would want to build Pth with pthread support on a system that
has native pthread.h support.

You omitted item (3) from your reply.  I am curious what your opinion is on
that one.  Basically, you install a header file pthread.h in the include path
that simply doesn't work as a pthread implementation header file.  Doesn't
that seem wrong to you?

> Rather than uselessly waste time arguing, I'd like to know what
> problem there is with committing my trivial patch. gpgme is the only
> software in the whole ports collection that even needs to be patched to work
> around this issue.

I do not believe it is useless to spend some time on learning the technical
issues involved in making the technically correct decision.  If we were only
leaving this at a level of opinion, then yes, it would be wasted time.  But if
we can use the discussion to learn about what issues are involved and what the
technically right thing to do is, or what trade-offs are involved, I think it
is time well spent.

In particular, I do not know why you would want --enable-pthread on your
platform.  This is likely ignorance on my part, please help me out.  I think
it is good engineering to not make changes to a source code base without
having a valid rational for it, even if the change is apparently trivial.
That is why I want to be convinced (by technical arguments) that the change
you propose is the right thing to go about it, before applying the change.

I will address the assuan issues separately.

Thanks,
Marcus