1 |
Jeroen Roovers schrieb: |
2 |
>> -Werror is basically saying that it is not safe to ship code which |
3 |
>> produces warnings. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> An upstream demanding -Werror should work means upstream would need to |
6 |
> test rather a lot more than their own favourite |
7 |
> distro/architecture/library versions/kernel/userland, which isn't |
8 |
> going to happen. |
9 |
|
10 |
No. -Werror just means that if a warning is encountered, the user should |
11 |
be prevented from installing the software. Then a developer looks at the |
12 |
issue and determines whether it is safe to ignore or needs to be addressed. |
13 |
|
14 |
>> I personally think that if an upstream says that no warnings must be |
15 |
>> produced by the code, and a developer should look at them before |
16 |
>> declaring any warnings safe, then that is best followed. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Upstream does not need to take into account warnings produced by |
19 |
> compilers for lesser known architectures, as explained above. |
20 |
|
21 |
These warnings could be harmless or introduce silent breakage. The user |
22 |
often can't tell. |
23 |
|
24 |
> As an upstream development aid to check code that has just been added |
25 |
> or changed, -Werror is fine, but not in the wild jungle that is Gentoo. |
26 |
> You might as well just look at the warnings themselves instead of |
27 |
> breaking the build system by making them fatal. In other words, for |
28 |
> upstream development it's convenient, but never for our users out there. |
29 |
|
30 |
-Werror is not convenient for anybody. When the developer has looked at |
31 |
the issue, then the particular warning could be made non-fatal. hasufell |
32 |
mentioned in another post the GTK+ deprecated warnings. |
33 |
|
34 |
Note that I don't propose the current policy to be changed. I can |
35 |
totally live with filtering -Werror in order to reduce maintenance work, |
36 |
at the small cost mentioned above. |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
Best regards, |
40 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |