| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:34 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 2 |
<chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Jason Zaman schrieb: |
| 5 |
> >> No. With -Werror, upstream indicates that if a warning occurs, the build |
| 6 |
> >> should fail and the resulting code not be installed on user systems. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> Instead, someone knowledgeable should look at the situation *first* and |
| 9 |
> >> determine whether it is a bogus warning, a trivial issue, or something which |
| 10 |
> >> warrants further attention. |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> I have long disagreed with QA policy on this, and think that ebuilds should |
| 13 |
> >> respect upstream here. Of course giving users the ability to override. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > I disagree. -Werror means that upstream wants it to build without |
| 16 |
> > warnings on their distro with their version of the compiler with their |
| 17 |
> > versions of all the libraries. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> It means, upstream wants it to build without warnings everywhere. And if a |
| 20 |
> warning occurs (due to change in compiler, libraries, architecture, etc.), |
| 21 |
> have a developer look at it first before installing the code on user systems. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
This sounds good in theory, but I think it's pretty well established |
| 24 |
that in practice this isn't effective and instead is a large waste of |
| 25 |
time. In fact, the foundational premise that it's possible to build |
| 26 |
without warnings everywhere is simply wrong. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not built |
| 29 |
this configuration. None of the arch teams had built this |
| 30 |
configuration until I did for the last architecture Cc'd. The patch |
| 31 |
committed doesn't change anything installed on the system, if not for |
| 32 |
Werror preventing the code from building. |
Archives