| 1 |
El lun, 14-05-2012 a las 20:24 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:01:22 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > -Werror is basically saying that it is not safe to ship code which |
| 6 |
> > produces warnings. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> An upstream demanding -Werror should work means upstream would need to |
| 9 |
> test rather a lot more than their own favourite |
| 10 |
> distro/architecture/library versions/kernel/userland, which isn't |
| 11 |
> going to happen. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > I personally think that if an upstream says that no warnings must be |
| 14 |
> > produced by the code, and a developer should look at them before |
| 15 |
> > declaring any warnings safe, then that is best followed. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Upstream does not need to take into account warnings produced by |
| 18 |
> compilers for lesser known architectures, as explained above. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> As an upstream development aid to check code that has just been added |
| 21 |
> or changed, -Werror is fine, but not in the wild jungle that is Gentoo. |
| 22 |
> You might as well just look at the warnings themselves instead of |
| 23 |
> breaking the build system by making them fatal. In other words, for |
| 24 |
> upstream development it's convenient, but never for our users out there. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> Also, bug reports based on *FLAGS=-Werror will be closed as INVALID. |
| 27 |
> (Perhaps we should document that too.) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> jer |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I fully agree with Jeroen on this, -Werror problems should be reported |
| 35 |
directly to upstream if people want to help them on fixing warnings. |
Archives