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 0EE80138334 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:46:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 40FE4E0A03; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com (mail-ot1-f65.google.com [209.85.210.65]) (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 E2FF2E09F6 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:46:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id o13-v6so5986076otl.4 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:46:37 -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; bh=OyR36X/xiEeiNgvDPi+KUBL4EzH4GQ3RwSHoMv+aLcc=; b=ZcrCs4YBLbRm5IiqUtsIdb/cbgVCbkwSE6Byrnih9eZ1mWm60CQB8tYu3fH51FBeNt GQE/DvkmMGNUqtNkwVVTJWCogRlvKpQUOppJjIwxImzfPZWb+cRiN2Gr0uYPXhc2r8mG aWrOTuGpKxERuGULm2PfY5/Rxqc55DPj0UImVga4F/1YCpA2QgDMTeen2KCROq+nI1aR NsvWOSZ9rj8p3uRVvYlypMb4VX3ui6c/MwgQD0bnpU7ePn+VafMMmQ8b0dZoA/ysr668 m7KQ1NgOqxxfuqe6occgeNXkde6QB5B6yxoEgqqxbMm6Wa9AcojmxmyNcqQqrvpLcBJG maWg== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51Am4NvMLpFaFFraN36zgSzDi7yN8thh1upb4UrFkNYJmEB3pH/2 bzhDktfqL/iv3tgNLXphcforfoetS2poft8Rd9m1bBgn X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdZOxybKMct9amFIe7J0AhW4MJs1b1U6Tfbq4gt+vWCghshDUpivMFDHpkkXf2XhW4aIgsYW/3SXCbNeawjcUF4= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7281:: with SMTP id t1-v6mr6044363otj.345.1536961596642; Fri, 14 Sep 2018 14:46:36 -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: <4318377f-9428-d79a-3ba3-5b2c1ad68166@gentoo.org> <1536946390.1087.1.camel@gentoo.org> <72caf534-9d11-b88c-5f94-901140a240a4@gentoo.org> <73BDD985-3347-4BA9-967A-7EF75785DA08@gentoo.org> <20180914210205.GF26329@gentoo.org> <20180914212855.GH26329@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20180914212855.GH26329@gentoo.org> From: Alon Bar-Lev Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 00:46:24 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Archives-Salt: 1ec6aac1-544a-41d8-8776-f74a0b857bb2 X-Archives-Hash: 8ee3ee8003aa1d025fdd5e4fd9a9af3b On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:29 AM Fabian Groffen wrote: > > On 15-09-2018 00:07:12 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps, if one persists on going this route, only do this for platforms > > > that upstream supports, such that arches which will suffer from this > > > (typically ppc, sparc, ...) don't have to be blocked by this. > > > > Exactly in these cases the -Werror is useful as if upstream expects no > > warnings then any warning should block installation and trigger bug > > report. In Gentoo in many cases we use packages on platform has no > > access to, our feedback to upstream is valuable. A great example is > > gnutls in which we collectively (maintainer, unstable users, > > architecture teams, stable users) found issues on architectures that > > almost nobody other than Gentoo has access to. > > > > I don't believe Gentoo users are (supposed to be) an extension of > upstreams. This is exactly what I think that is special about Gentoo, and the reason I use Gentoo. Unlike other distribution Gentoo is the closest thing of using upstream. A maintainer in Gentoo who is not see himself part of the upstream packages he maintains has far less impact than a maintainer who does see himself as part of upstream or is upstream. Per your statement, we should not allow any architecture or setup that upstream, such as exact versioning, architecture or toolchain. > If upstreams insist on that, they should make their software > non-free, adding a non-modification clause or something. In any case, > it is not Gentoo's job IMHO. Then we cannot re-distribute or patch, how is it related to the discussion? We are talking about open source projects and I know it is cliche... the "greater good" and helping the "free open source movement" a a viable alternative. I thought this is what unite us here. > In the end it is Gentoo who needs to care > for its users. I prefer we do that by giving them an option to become > that extension of upstream, e.g. by USE=upstream-cflags, which Gentoo > disables by default. Do you think someone do not care about the users? Do you actually think upstream does not care about users? I do not understand this statement. If downstream maintainer believes that upstream is friendly for the Gentoo overhead (which is higher than binary distributions) or create the relationship in which Gentoo is 1st citizen at upstream, why do you think users cannot use vanilla upstream? > As maintainer and/or enthusiastic user, like you wrote for gnutls, I > would be more than happy to provide build logs/errors for all the arches > I have access to. So like I wrote before, I think we should consider > case-by-case basis to make it easy to do so. This entire discussion is to allow case-by-case and not black and white approach recently enforced. Regards, Alon