Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

[Fabian Groffen]

I think you misunderstood what I wrote, or I wasn't clear enough.
Richard summed up my intention nicely in his response.

Fabian

On 15-09-2018 00:46:24 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:29 AM Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > On 15-09-2018 00:07:12 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps, if one persists on going this route, only do this for platforms
> > > > that upstream supports, such that arches which will suffer from this
> > > > (typically ppc, sparc, ...) don't have to be blocked by this.
> > >
> > > Exactly in these cases the -Werror is useful as if upstream expects no
> > > warnings then any warning should block installation and trigger bug
> > > report. In Gentoo in many cases we use packages on platform has no
> > > access to, our feedback to upstream is valuable. A great example is
> > > gnutls in which we collectively (maintainer, unstable users,
> > > architecture teams, stable users) found issues on architectures that
> > > almost nobody other than Gentoo has access to.
> > >
> >
> > I don't believe Gentoo users are (supposed to be) an extension of
> > upstreams.
>
> This is exactly what I think that is special about Gentoo, and the
> reason I use Gentoo. Unlike other distribution Gentoo is the closest
> thing of using upstream. A maintainer in Gentoo who is not see himself
> part of the upstream packages he maintains has far less impact than a
> maintainer who does see himself as part of upstream or is upstream.
>
> Per your statement, we should not allow any architecture or setup that
> upstream, such as exact versioning, architecture or toolchain.
>
> > If upstreams insist on that, they should make their software
> > non-free, adding a non-modification clause or something.  In any case,
> > it is not Gentoo's job IMHO.
>
> Then we cannot re-distribute or patch, how is it related to the
> discussion? We are talking about open source projects and I know it is
> cliche... the "greater good" and helping the "free open source
> movement" a a viable alternative. I thought this is what unite us
> here.
>
> > In the end it is Gentoo who needs to care
> > for its users.  I prefer we do that by giving them an option to become
> > that extension of upstream, e.g. by USE=upstream-cflags, which Gentoo
> > disables by default.
>
> Do you think someone do not care about the users? Do you actually
> think upstream does not care about users? I do not understand this
> statement. If downstream maintainer believes that upstream is friendly
> for the Gentoo overhead (which is higher than binary distributions) or
> create the relationship in which Gentoo is 1st citizen at upstream,
> why do you think users cannot use vanilla upstream?
>
> > As maintainer and/or enthusiastic user, like you wrote for gnutls, I
> > would be more than happy to provide build logs/errors for all the arches
> > I have access to.  So like I wrote before, I think we should consider
> > case-by-case basis to make it easy to do so.
>
> This entire discussion is to allow case-by-case and not black and
> white approach recently enforced.
>
> Regards,
> Alon
>

-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level