| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:20 PM Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 09/14/2018 03:58 PM, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> |
| 5 |
> >> No one has answered the question: what do you do when a stable package |
| 6 |
> >> breaks because of a new warning? |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> ...> |
| 9 |
> > Wouldn’t this be largely covered as part of GCC stabilization? We could reserve the right to kill -Werror in a package where it blocks GCC stabilization if the maintainer does not handle it in a timely manner. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> They would be uncovered during GCC stabilization, but then you're right |
| 13 |
> back in the original situation: how do you fix the stable package? The |
| 14 |
> only answer that doesn't violate some other policy is to patch it in a |
| 15 |
> new revision and wait for it to stabilize again. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Other questions arise: Do we block stabilization of clang et al.? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Presumably we could make it a blocker, so then portage won't install |
| 21 |
the new stable toolchain. That buys time and only affects users of |
| 22 |
that particular package. But, as I pointed out before you can do that |
| 23 |
without using -Werror - just block installation with an unqualified |
| 24 |
toolchain. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
You would only use an approach like this for packages where QA was |
| 27 |
fairly important, so the inconvenience would be worth it. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Rich |
Archives