Le 26/06/2010 21:39, Enrico Weigelt a écrit :
> #2 One point i don't agree is the "dont add -Werror" rule. actually,
> i'm thinking of making -Wall and -Werror mandatory. if some
> package doenst build fine, it's simply broken. period.
You're obviously new here...
Just take a stroll through bugzilla to see how much we _fight_ against
-Werror. Let's see why you obviously have not thought through this
completely before writing this :
We currently offer 11 different slots of GCC, 3 of gcc-apple, each with
multiple versions, 3 versions of llvm-gcc, 2 versions of clang, 7
versions of icc, so in all 26 *major* versions. You do well know that
each compiler prints out different warnings for the *same* code...
We also offer 10 versions of glibc, 8 versions of uclibc, and 7 versions
of klibc. Each version may have header bugs, so may trigger warnings for
perfectly good code.
And finally we offer 5 unmasked versions of binutils (newer ones even
have a brand new linker - gold) and 5 versions of binutils-apple. Again,
different tools, different warnings...
If you want to make -Werror mandatory, you *MUST* test all combinations
above as *THEY ARE ALL SUPPORTED*.
Otherwise, packages will break for no good reason and users will hate us.
-Werror is a perfectly fine *developer* feature. For example, Gnome
autoconf macros enable it for development snapshots, but never ever
enable it for stable releases.
So please, if you want to write nonsense, don't write it in the name of
PS, Diego (flameeyes) is already having enough issues with his tinderbox
running *ONE* compiler/linker/libc combination...