1 |
Le 26/06/2010 21:39, Enrico Weigelt a écrit : |
2 |
> #2 One point i don't agree is the "dont add -Werror" rule. actually, |
3 |
> i'm thinking of making -Wall and -Werror mandatory. if some |
4 |
> package doenst build fine, it's simply broken. period. |
5 |
|
6 |
You're obviously new here... |
7 |
|
8 |
Just take a stroll through bugzilla to see how much we _fight_ against |
9 |
-Werror. Let's see why you obviously have not thought through this |
10 |
completely before writing this : |
11 |
|
12 |
We currently offer 11 different slots of GCC, 3 of gcc-apple, each with |
13 |
multiple versions, 3 versions of llvm-gcc, 2 versions of clang, 7 |
14 |
versions of icc, so in all 26 *major* versions. You do well know that |
15 |
each compiler prints out different warnings for the *same* code... |
16 |
|
17 |
We also offer 10 versions of glibc, 8 versions of uclibc, and 7 versions |
18 |
of klibc. Each version may have header bugs, so may trigger warnings for |
19 |
perfectly good code. |
20 |
|
21 |
And finally we offer 5 unmasked versions of binutils (newer ones even |
22 |
have a brand new linker - gold) and 5 versions of binutils-apple. Again, |
23 |
different tools, different warnings... |
24 |
|
25 |
If you want to make -Werror mandatory, you *MUST* test all combinations |
26 |
above as *THEY ARE ALL SUPPORTED*. |
27 |
|
28 |
Otherwise, packages will break for no good reason and users will hate us. |
29 |
|
30 |
-Werror is a perfectly fine *developer* feature. For example, Gnome |
31 |
autoconf macros enable it for development snapshots, but never ever |
32 |
enable it for stable releases. |
33 |
|
34 |
So please, if you want to write nonsense, don't write it in the name of |
35 |
Gentoo. |
36 |
|
37 |
Rémi |
38 |
|
39 |
PS, Diego (flameeyes) is already having enough issues with his tinderbox |
40 |
running *ONE* compiler/linker/libc combination... |