Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

[Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn]

Jason Zaman schrieb:
>> No. With -Werror, upstream indicates that if a warning occurs, the build
>> should fail and the resulting code not be installed on user systems.
>>
>> Instead, someone knowledgeable should look at the situation *first* and
>> determine whether it is a bogus warning, a trivial issue, or something which
>> warrants further attention.
>>
>> I have long disagreed with QA policy on this, and think that ebuilds should
>> respect upstream here. Of course giving users the ability to override.
>
> I disagree. -Werror means that upstream wants it to build without
> warnings on their distro with their version of the compiler with their
> versions of all the libraries.

It means, upstream wants it to build without warnings everywhere. And if a 
warning occurs (due to change in compiler, libraries, architecture, etc.), 
have a developer look at it first before installing the code on user systems.

> There are things that upstream absolutely should be setting which make a
> big difference for security like FORTIFY_SOURCE but hardened already has
> that set so I get this and thus basically everything would fail to
> compile.
>
> $ gcc -O1 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 foo.c
> <command-line>:0:0: warning: "_FORTIFY_SOURCE" redefined
> <built-in>: note: this is the location of the previous definition
>
> This all on amd64 too. If we start with other arches or cross compilers
> or other things then -Werror is just not possible.

But you have looked at the issue, decided that it is harmless, and can now 
make this particular warning non-fatal. Or report upstream, so they can do 
the Right Thing™ and don't redefine.

$ gcc -O1 -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 foo.c

That is all what is desired.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn