1 |
On 14/05/12 23:42, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
2 |
>>> I personally think that if an upstream says that no warnings must be |
3 |
>>> produced by the code, and a developer should look at them before |
4 |
>>> declaring any warnings safe, then that is best followed. |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> Upstream does not need to take into account warnings produced by |
7 |
>> compilers for lesser known architectures, as explained above. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> These warnings could be harmless or introduce silent breakage. The user |
10 |
> often can't tell. |
11 |
|
12 |
You can have breakage without any warnings being emitted, and you can |
13 |
have warnings that result in no breakage whatsoever. |
14 |
|
15 |
Furthermore, -Werror on Gentoo makes zero sense; portage will already |
16 |
produce a QA notice with warnings that have the potential to result in |
17 |
breakage. -Werror is not needed. |