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 4F5DE138334 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:34:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A07DE0D84; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:34:24 +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 C17DEE0D80 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:34:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.102] (dslb-002-200-185-218.002.200.pools.vodafone-ip.de [2.200.185.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 60676335D2B for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2018 21:34:22 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror References: <20180909143221.21d784d02f51623e8c57c545@gentoo.org> <1536510660.863.9.camel@gentoo.org> <20180910074539.GA6512@baraddur.perfinion.com> <0d8b7f02-9c38-969c-413b-69d4dee6ca89@gentoo.org> <1894d141-88e0-602f-88ea-2457b9ec4625@gentoo.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ch=c3=ad-Thanh_Christopher_Nguy=e1=bb=85n?= Openpgp: preference=signencrypt To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 23:35:04 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.9.1 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: ead5e9be-a544-42f4-b8c1-c665c07ced42 X-Archives-Hash: e51c3466e23bb73c82d1496716dc2cd9 Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb: > On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: >> It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free >> from the beginning across architectures, compiler versions, etc. But >> that is not the goal anyway. It is examining the situation and taking >> appropriate action, and then applying a change to no longer cause that >> particular warning (or make it non-fatal if the warning is bogus/harmless). > > sure, but for upstreams that make this an explicit goal, do we really > want to apply additional downstream pataches with the additional > complexity that carries for build system (autotools re-generation that > might make it unsupported upstream etc) ? I fully understand why in the general case this is considered undesirable. But in very specific cases it can make sense to err on the side of caution, and the rigid -Werror policy gets in the way. This is what the initial message by bircoph suggested. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn