| 1 |
On 9/10/18 11:21 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free |
| 4 |
>> from the beginning across architectures, compiler versions, etc. But |
| 5 |
>> that is not the goal anyway. It is examining the situation and taking |
| 6 |
>> appropriate action, and then applying a change to no longer cause that |
| 7 |
>> particular warning (or make it non-fatal if the warning is bogus/harmless). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> sure, but for upstreams that make this an explicit goal, do we really |
| 10 |
> want to apply additional downstream pataches with the additional |
| 11 |
> complexity that carries for build system (autotools re-generation that |
| 12 |
> might make it unsupported upstream etc) ? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
in all fairness, for one of my upstream packages, SKS, we make -Werror |
| 16 |
part of non-release versions but remove it for releases. But there are |
| 17 |
certain crypto related packages where you want the ensure it is properly |
| 18 |
handle altogether, in particular where RNG is concerned as there isn't |
| 19 |
really a proper way to test for it afterwards.. for other packages the |
| 20 |
test suite is of great importance.. if the tests are proper there isn't |
| 21 |
a great need, but sadly packages today doesn't really come with proper |
| 22 |
test suits |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 26 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 27 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives