From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 69BE8138334 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:15:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B4A5DE0DD1; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:15:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pl1-f170.google.com (mail-pl1-f170.google.com [209.85.214.170]) (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 537DBE0D83 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2018 00:15:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pl1-f170.google.com with SMTP id j8-v6so1732346pll.12 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 17:15:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Cf+GihRTBRS5fWzjgrHVmZqge8DVWl2D1XahfvhsJU4=; b=R44tKieDmFs9uyImOGVqb8NfUXCqgvUVAYauuZzaf/psnbP7nyWELLO51WMxxoTmxi uLGWqW0edIK3x7rvl9bJvn/ixV59Ot4SsBVwKMv9Y2nnT0L2fNk9g7Jaav1nW7g/DaA9 E6ueQoD4BbCQ8SjDdvUu3Th668xWBDCeYB+KFUZddxOFKFwSnx9iZ1xLoizQT56rCn+n JEf8lhtF3QdpR5GsuLTqIRKV3Ad1026Wrbtkxm7p3lhy4hcj6t7l/h2sOKkvnjzw4FS6 /0w0oZeYu2YuVgadM9wwPelQJ9C9Z0DFXmMdtKUGCR4xF/sVQrba/3tMlXmpYtLjfPC1 9viA== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51DzIuJBylROCKhx1cAfmIDbwq/q+jA9jNfXelu3GLSU4rkKDroU D39MJeUn7DMEb3g37v+dVq0Bh9vDuf9MqX0A3UykjTNP X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0Vda+X7cjmhvRhtvOKM/cw8QV/yujznEWHdYw0jv0SRD34oxgNk4FX+oHYl6FzsBAsx3saqQOvMBUmh+0E5+MdQY= X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:a613:: with SMTP id u19-v6mr4724954plq.234.1536797699867; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 17:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180909143221.21d784d02f51623e8c57c545@gentoo.org> <95a6e581-f005-99de-23ae-87a8e6014f1b@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <95a6e581-f005-99de-23ae-87a8e6014f1b@gentoo.org> From: Rich Freeman Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:14:48 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] acceptable alternatives to -Werror, was: Changing policy about -Werror To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 6b8e0907-1c13-4c8e-8e9b-6f315b2a9ec1 X-Archives-Hash: c8a99c03d862f1a99be9cbf3f8a372d9 On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:35 PM Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n wrote: > > > Requirements: > > * Do not fail to build/install when a warning is encountered On a particularly critical package like a filesystem, wouldn't we want to still fail to install when a warning is encountered? > Also possible is to introduce FEATURES=3D"strict-warnings" or similar, wh= ich > will cause the build to fail if warnings are encountered in a warningfree > ebuild. I guess this depends on whether warningfree is only used where -Werror would otherwise be used. Packages could presumably also warn users when installing without this feature set not to complain too much if our defaults destroy their data and to consider setting the flag... :) I get that users might quit if packages don't install, but I'm not sure that a filesystem corruption is going to make them any happier... --=20 Rich