Hi,
Oh, this is all fine for _GStreamer_, but bad for _GNOME_, because
this sends away potencial GNOME contributors since it's simply too
difficult to build it. Sorry to be so blunt, but I think it was selfish
of the GStreamer project to have -Werror in the makefiles.
Two notes:
- -Werror
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 14:24 +0100, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
Two notes:
- -Werror is only enabled for CVS; releases have it disabled by default.
-
http://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/data/doc/gstreamer/head/faq/html/chapter-cvs.html#werror
also shows how easy it is to override the flags.
Hey,
On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 16:20 +, Ross Burton wrote:
I'm guessing that Gustavo thought that -Werror was enabled in the
releases, which everyone agrees is a bad idea (new compilers warn about
code in interesing ways). I agree that using strict compile flags in
development is a good
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
I'm not convinced that making HEAD unusable for everybody by enforcing
this in gnome-session is the way forward. For one thing, it will
drastically reduce the amount of testing that HEAD gets. I think making
this
Seg, 2005-11-07 às 01:36 -0500, Matthias Clasen escreveu:
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hey,
The next releases of glib (HEAD and glib-2-8) will support a new debug
flag for the G_DEBUG environment variable: fatal_criticals. This make
the program crash on
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 15:17 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
Seg, 2005-11-07 às 01:36 -0500, Matthias Clasen escreveu:
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hey,
The next releases of glib (HEAD and glib-2-8) will support a new debug
flag for the G_DEBUG
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 15:17 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
Seg, 2005-11-07 às 01:36 -0500, Matthias Clasen escreveu:
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
What do you think?
I'm not convinced that making
Seg, 2005-11-07 às 17:39 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
escreveu:
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 15:17 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
Seg, 2005-11-07 às 01:36 -0500, Matthias Clasen escreveu:
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hey,
The next
On 11/7/05, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This could also mean that developers start thinking twice before
adding a g_warning, and start using g_message instead, thus defeating is
purpose. g_warning is for reporting real problems, but no critical
ones; for critical
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
The next releases of glib (HEAD and glib-2-8) will support a new debug
flag for the G_DEBUG environment variable: fatal_criticals. This make
the program crash on critical warnings.
I'm all for this.
One thing we discussed on IRC is to
Hey,
The next releases of glib (HEAD and glib-2-8) will support a new debug
flag for the G_DEBUG environment variable: fatal_criticals. This make
the program crash on critical warnings.
I propose to use this nice feature during the development cycles to help
eradicate all these critical
I'm not really for this at least on the HEAD branch. Although, one idea
would be to branch off the ubuntu mirrors and get people who want to test
it build off of that? You can use the diffs of whatever the changes are
into bugzilla. Just a thought. I think I mentioned this in IRC.
sri
On
On 11/6/05, Sriram Ramkrishna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not really for this at least on the HEAD branch.
That is the only branch it makes even the smallest bit of sense on.
Although, one idea
would be to branch off the ubuntu mirrors and get people who want to test
it build off of that?
On 11/6/05, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said in IRC, I'm not terribly convinced we do a great job of
fixing the crashes we already have, much less all the new crashes this
will introduce. But I'm willing to be swayed by analysis of the
incoming/outgoing crasher bug flow we
On 11/6/05, Elijah Newren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/6/05, Luis Villa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said in IRC, I'm not terribly convinced we do a great job of
fixing the crashes we already have, much less all the new crashes this
will introduce. But I'm willing to be swayed by
Vincent Untz wrote:
What do you think?
Even if i'm a newbie, i like to get feedback from my questions, so i'll
give you some here :-).
As Elijah pointed, i think finding bugs early is the right thing to do,
so this idea seems pretty sound to me.
--
Julien Gilli
Hi,
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 12:12 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
As I said in IRC, I'm not terribly convinced we do a great job of
fixing the crashes we already have, much less all the new crashes this
will introduce. But I'm willing to be swayed by analysis of the
incoming/outgoing crasher bug flow
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hey,
The next releases of glib (HEAD and glib-2-8) will support a new debug
flag for the G_DEBUG environment variable: fatal_criticals. This make
the program crash on critical warnings.
I propose to use this nice feature during the
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 01:36 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Sun, 2005-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
What do you think?
I'm not convinced that making HEAD unusable for everybody by enforcing
this in gnome-session is the way forward. For one thing, it will
drastically reduce
19 matches
Mail list logo
