Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 18:54:00
Message-Id: 1337021467.19402.13.camel@belkin4
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted? by Jeroen Roovers
El lun, 14-05-2012 a las 20:24 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió:
> On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:01:22 +0200 > Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn <chithanh@g.o> wrote: > > > -Werror is basically saying that it is not safe to ship code which > > produces warnings. > > An upstream demanding -Werror should work means upstream would need to > test rather a lot more than their own favourite > distro/architecture/library versions/kernel/userland, which isn't > going to happen. > > > I personally think that if an upstream says that no warnings must be > > produced by the code, and a developer should look at them before > > declaring any warnings safe, then that is best followed. > > Upstream does not need to take into account warnings produced by > compilers for lesser known architectures, as explained above. > > As an upstream development aid to check code that has just been added > or changed, -Werror is fine, but not in the wild jungle that is Gentoo. > You might as well just look at the warnings themselves instead of > breaking the build system by making them fatal. In other words, for > upstream development it's convenient, but never for our users out there. > > Also, bug reports based on *FLAGS=-Werror will be closed as INVALID. > (Perhaps we should document that too.) > > > jer > >
I fully agree with Jeroen on this, -Werror problems should be reported directly to upstream if people want to help them on fixing warnings.


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature