I think you misunderstood what I wrote, or I wasn't clear enough. Richard summed up my intention nicely in his response.
Fabian On 15-09-2018 00:46:24 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 12:29 AM Fabian Groffen <grob...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On 15-09-2018 00:07:12 +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > > > > > Perhaps, if one persists on going this route, only do this for platforms > > > > that upstream supports, such that arches which will suffer from this > > > > (typically ppc, sparc, ...) don't have to be blocked by this. > > > > > > Exactly in these cases the -Werror is useful as if upstream expects no > > > warnings then any warning should block installation and trigger bug > > > report. In Gentoo in many cases we use packages on platform has no > > > access to, our feedback to upstream is valuable. A great example is > > > gnutls in which we collectively (maintainer, unstable users, > > > architecture teams, stable users) found issues on architectures that > > > almost nobody other than Gentoo has access to. > > > > > > > I don't believe Gentoo users are (supposed to be) an extension of > > upstreams. > > This is exactly what I think that is special about Gentoo, and the > reason I use Gentoo. Unlike other distribution Gentoo is the closest > thing of using upstream. A maintainer in Gentoo who is not see himself > part of the upstream packages he maintains has far less impact than a > maintainer who does see himself as part of upstream or is upstream. > > Per your statement, we should not allow any architecture or setup that > upstream, such as exact versioning, architecture or toolchain. > > > If upstreams insist on that, they should make their software > > non-free, adding a non-modification clause or something. In any case, > > it is not Gentoo's job IMHO. > > Then we cannot re-distribute or patch, how is it related to the > discussion? We are talking about open source projects and I know it is > cliche... the "greater good" and helping the "free open source > movement" a a viable alternative. I thought this is what unite us > here. > > > In the end it is Gentoo who needs to care > > for its users. I prefer we do that by giving them an option to become > > that extension of upstream, e.g. by USE=upstream-cflags, which Gentoo > > disables by default. > > Do you think someone do not care about the users? Do you actually > think upstream does not care about users? I do not understand this > statement. If downstream maintainer believes that upstream is friendly > for the Gentoo overhead (which is higher than binary distributions) or > create the relationship in which Gentoo is 1st citizen at upstream, > why do you think users cannot use vanilla upstream? > > > As maintainer and/or enthusiastic user, like you wrote for gnutls, I > > would be more than happy to provide build logs/errors for all the arches > > I have access to. So like I wrote before, I think we should consider > > case-by-case basis to make it easy to do so. > > This entire discussion is to allow case-by-case and not black and > white approach recently enforced. > > Regards, > Alon > -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
