Jeroen Roovers schrieb: >> -Werror is basically saying that it is not safe to ship code which >> produces warnings. > > An upstream demanding -Werror should work means upstream would need to > test rather a lot more than their own favourite > distro/architecture/library versions/kernel/userland, which isn't > going to happen.
No. -Werror just means that if a warning is encountered, the user should be prevented from installing the software. Then a developer looks at the issue and determines whether it is safe to ignore or needs to be addressed. >> I personally think that if an upstream says that no warnings must be >> produced by the code, and a developer should look at them before >> declaring any warnings safe, then that is best followed. > > Upstream does not need to take into account warnings produced by > compilers for lesser known architectures, as explained above. These warnings could be harmless or introduce silent breakage. The user often can't tell. > As an upstream development aid to check code that has just been added > or changed, -Werror is fine, but not in the wild jungle that is Gentoo. > You might as well just look at the warnings themselves instead of > breaking the build system by making them fatal. In other words, for > upstream development it's convenient, but never for our users out there. -Werror is not convenient for anybody. When the developer has looked at the issue, then the particular warning could be made non-fatal. hasufell mentioned in another post the GTK+ deprecated warnings. Note that I don't propose the current policy to be changed. I can totally live with filtering -Werror in order to reduce maintenance work, at the small cost mentioned above. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
