Re: [gentoo-dev] Changing policy about -Werror

[Richard Yao]

> On Sep 14, 2018, at 3:29 PM, Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 09/14/2018 01:52 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> 
>> Wouldn't the flip side of this be demonstrating that this has actually
>> caused issues?  If following upstream discovers no bugs and also
>> causes no issues, why not leave it to maintainer discretion?
>> 
> 
> We know it causes issues, there are hundreds of bugs about it (bugzilla
> stops counting at 500 on a search for "Werror").
> 
> No one has answered the question: what do you do when a stable package
> breaks because of a new warning?
> 
> If there's no answer to that question that doesn't involve making an
> unofficial in-place downstream-only edit to a piece of code that is (by
> the opposing argument) intensely security-critical in a stable package,
> then we're all wasting our time talking about this.
Wouldn’t this be largely covered as part of GCC stabilization? We could reserve 
the right to kill -Werror in a package where it blocks GCC stabilization if the 
maintainer does not handle it in a timely manner.
>