| 1 |
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 23:05:35 -0600 |
| 2 |
Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I'd like to add two warnings to the QA GCC warning message reporter |
| 5 |
> for GCC 4.2. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I think it would be useful if the set of warnings could be customisable |
| 8 |
outside of portage (in particular, to render it independent of portage |
| 9 |
revisions). I'm thinking of a profile file - which could also then be |
| 10 |
different for different profiles. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Also worth noting; if you stick '-Wall' in CFLAGS, in my experience |
| 13 |
something like 1 in 5-6 packages fail as a result (on a recent world |
| 14 |
rebuild, 224 out of 1273). It's a much higher rate than any of the |
| 15 |
other QA checks, and it makes it hard to see the wood for the |
| 16 |
trees - it also means it's impractical to set FEATURES=stricter. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
To this end it would also be useful if the QA notices were _all_ sent to |
| 19 |
the elog report; the "Files were installed with user/group portage" one |
| 20 |
is, but I don't think any of the others are. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My time is rather limited to do anything about it for a month or two, |
| 23 |
but I thought I'd throw this into the melting pot for thought at least. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives