Michael Meskes wrote: > Sorry, I didn't see that as I dn't use gcc-4.6.
No problem; I should have mentioned it before. > Which is why I think it should stay in there. We build on way more systems > than > upstream probably can, so keeping -Werror in will help the package. Fair enough. Now that gcc-4.6 has nicely parseable warnings, I wonder if buildds could grep for the string '[-W' so package maintainers could subscribe using a new PTS keyword to learn when their supposedly warning-free package acquires a warning. Roger et al, does that sound interesting to you? Is buildd the place to implement this sort of thing? Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
