From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-85867-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8ED7D138334
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:51:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 952B7E093B;
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:51:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E3DFE0931
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:51:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-it0-f43.google.com (mail-it0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
(Authenticated sender: mattst88)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 61428335D01
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 20:51:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id p79-v6so31441216itp.3
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51B1pkWISEUxQ6YYHVgLu3Cs04k7yD/wKepgmg05lM0QN9ihCIGE
fGqtsIMODq9W+2SZ+kodZbBZOGhIBoJ3rDAkUnw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZJ7yGzW54tYLrC20vLlLoJzzmJtcmjg5tWCG2Kl1IMIB1CpMLpOhET/unaYOEyXJt0ds9KLdCDZATuf9pvXxU=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:60d:: with SMTP id 13-v6mr18793372itv.1.1536612687328;
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:51:27 -0700 (PDT)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180909143221.21d784d02f51623e8c57c545@gentoo.org>
<1536510660.863.9.camel@gentoo.org> <ff5331b1-eb52-34eb-95f8-9b124019b809@gentoo.org>
<20180910074539.GA6512@baraddur.perfinion.com> <0d8b7f02-9c38-969c-413b-69d4dee6ca89@gentoo.org>
In-Reply-To: <0d8b7f02-9c38-969c-413b-69d4dee6ca89@gentoo.org>
From: Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 13:51:15 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAEdQ38GfSjoKmn2jZgA-j8dxXESxe_hxu-bovSKgo6yonrR9bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEdQ38GfSjoKmn2jZgA-j8dxXESxe_hxu-bovSKgo6yonrR9bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror
To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: 71fc0b62-9fea-47e5-8124-0f10f47bf5d8
X-Archives-Hash: 52560c220a04401acf8a8256414f81ce
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:34 PM Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n
<chithanh@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Jason Zaman schrieb:
> >> No. With -Werror, upstream indicates that if a warning occurs, the bui=
ld
> >> should fail and the resulting code not be installed on user systems.
> >>
> >> Instead, someone knowledgeable should look at the situation *first* an=
d
> >> determine whether it is a bogus warning, a trivial issue, or something=
which
> >> warrants further attention.
> >>
> >> I have long disagreed with QA policy on this, and think that ebuilds s=
hould
> >> respect upstream here. Of course giving users the ability to override.
> >
> > I disagree. -Werror means that upstream wants it to build without
> > warnings on their distro with their version of the compiler with their
> > versions of all the libraries.
>
> It means, upstream wants it to build without warnings everywhere. And if =
a
> warning occurs (due to change in compiler, libraries, architecture, etc.)=
,
> have a developer look at it first before installing the code on user syst=
ems.
This sounds good in theory, but I think it's pretty well established
that in practice this isn't effective and instead is a large waste of
time. In fact, the foundational premise that it's possible to build
without warnings everywhere is simply wrong.
Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not built
this configuration. None of the arch teams had built this
configuration until I did for the last architecture Cc'd. The patch
committed doesn't change anything installed on the system, if not for
Werror preventing the code from building.