Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o>
To: Gentoo Dev <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:59:06
Message-Id: CAJ0EP40=gdNBq34CPe1goD7nnH2UppKkyh9TdocCrR=5x1so6w@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror by Rich Freeman
1 On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:31 PM Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
4 > >
5 > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:56 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote:
6 > > >
7 > > > On 9/10/18 10:51 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
8 > > > > Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not built
9 > > > > this configuration. None of the arch teams had built this
10 > > > > configuration until I did for the last architecture Cc'd. The patch
11 > > > > committed doesn't change anything installed on the system, if not for
12 > > > > Werror preventing the code from building.
13 > > >
14 > > > one way to look at it though, is that it is a valuable upstream
15 > > > contribution that this configuration produces the error, so Gentoo is
16 > > > contributing to upstream development because of it.
17 > >
18 > > As an end user of Gentoo, I may not care about "contributing to
19 > > upstream"; I just want the software to compile and install.
20 > >
21 >
22 > For more critical packages (like the example of zfs) whether it
23 > compiles and installs isn't 1/10th as important as whether it eats my
24 > data...
25
26 I was clearly responding to the "contributing upstream" argument,
27 which has nothing to do with eating data.