Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > The "default" would be the setting inherited by, eg, > src/bin/Makefile.inc. This already has a WARNS=6, are you saying that > debugging stuff under bin/ has been made more difficult by that change?
It certainly can be, yes. Although admittedly I don't spend a lot of time debugging stuff under /bin. > Why do we want bin/ to be WARNS-clean and not care about usr.bin/? Red herring. I'd like everything to be as warns-clean as possible, I just disagree that this change will do anything to improve it. > One of the strengths of BSD in general that I have come to love is its > higher consistency compared to most other systems. With WARNS=6 under > bin/ and WARNS=2 under sbin/ this consistency is violated. The thing that you're glossing over is that most of the stuff in /bin is our code, and a lot of the stuff in /usr/[s]bin is contrib code. Thus they actually ARE different. Then of course there is the whole "Foolish consistency ...." issue. >>> There's also a lot of >>> work done by the DragonflyBSD folks which I intend to port peu a peu. >> Can you elaborate on this? What work are you planning to port over, >> and how does it depend on this default WARNS level issue? > > See > http://gitweb.dragonflybsd.org/dragonfly.git?a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=WARNS6 > > It depends in no way on the included WARNS level, but "the big switch" > needs to be done anyway, so why not upfront? I disagree with your assertion that "the big switch needs to be done anyway." My personal preference would be to see first how many things will need overrides (WARNS != 6) before deciding whether it's worth setting a default. hth, Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
