Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On 14/05/12 16:44, hasufell wrote: However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. As can be judged by the title of my patches on the subject, I consider -Werror to be short-sighted at best and idiotic at worst. The next GCC version, which will add *loads* of warnings to anything that compiled cleanly before, is going to kill you. Remove it from the build system. It is one of those patches that will probably live downstream until the end of time, but that is acceptable. Regards, Tony V.
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On 15.05.2012 13:29, Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote: On 14/05/12 16:44, hasufell wrote: However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. As can be judged by the title of my patches on the subject, I consider -Werror to be short-sighted at best and idiotic at worst. The next GCC version, which will add *loads* of warnings to anything that compiled cleanly before, is going to kill you. Remove it from the build system. It is one of those patches that will probably live downstream until the end of time, but that is acceptable. That's why IMHO the best way to fix those bugs is to make -Werror optional. It the hardest path, but both upstream and downstream should be satisfied. Cheers, Kacper signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On Tuesday 15 May 2012 07:29:36 Tony Chainsaw Vroon wrote: On 14/05/12 16:44, hasufell wrote: However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. As can be judged by the title of my patches on the subject, I consider -Werror to be short-sighted at best and idiotic at worst. The next GCC version, which will add *loads* of warnings to anything that compiled cleanly before, is going to kill you. to clarify, having -Werror in upstream packages and getting enabled by default when doing development is not short-sighted or idiotic at all, but in fact makes a lot of sense for a lot of setups. shipping it enabled by default in a release could be considered those things though. a good compromise is what toolchain (and a few other) packages do: provide a configure flag like --disable-werror. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260867 However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. Is there a common opinion on that. And shouldn't we add that to the documentation then?
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
hasufell schrieb: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260867 However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. Is there a common opinion on that. And shouldn't we add that to the documentation then? -Werror is basically saying that it is not safe to ship code which produces warnings. 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. However this causes a heavy maintenance burden and will frequently break compilation, so the majority opinion is to remove -Werror from compiler flags. Best regards, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On Monday 14 May 2012 11:44:17 hasufell wrote: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260867 However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. Is there a common opinion on that. And shouldn't we add that to the documentation then? the common opinion is that no package in the tree should ever allow upstream to add -Werror to the build -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 17:44 +0200, hasufell wrote: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260867 However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. Is there a common opinion on that. And shouldn't we add that to the documentation then? -Werror is unwanted in anything that links to glib, gtk+, or other gnome libraries. This is because gnome upstream developers have been adding compiler warnings for usage of deprecated API which, despite being deprecated, will in all likelihood remain supported for years; -Werror turns those warnings into fatal build errors, and tracking down all instances of deprecated API use twice a year (after a new version of gnome is released) increases maintenance burden for little benefit. -Alexandre.
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On 05/14/2012 06:13 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 17:44 +0200, hasufell wrote: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260867 However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. Is there a common opinion on that. And shouldn't we add that to the documentation then? -Werror is unwanted in anything that links to glib, gtk+, or other gnome libraries. This is because gnome upstream developers have been adding compiler warnings for usage of deprecated API which, despite being deprecated, will in all likelihood remain supported for years; -Werror turns those warnings into fatal build errors, and tracking down all instances of deprecated API use twice a year (after a new version of gnome is released) increases maintenance burden for little benefit. -Alexandre. So, I will file a documentation bug unless someone can point me in the right direction. I didn't find a reference to that issue.
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:01:22 +0200 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote: -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. 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. 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. Also, bug reports based on *FLAGS=-Werror will be closed as INVALID. (Perhaps we should document that too.) jer
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:44:17 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260867 However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. Is there a common opinion on that. And shouldn't we add that to the documentation then? Upstream which enforces a particular warning flags on users is a dumb upstream. Necessary warning flags should be set locally by devs / distro maintainers rather than through autoconf. If they can't handle that, someone should probably be replaced. -- Best regards, Michał Górny signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
El lun, 14-05-2012 a las 20:24 +0200, Jeroen Roovers escribió: On Mon, 14 May 2012 18:01:22 +0200 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn chith...@gentoo.org wrote: -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. 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. 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. Also, bug reports based on *FLAGS=-Werror will be closed as INVALID. (Perhaps we should document that too.) jer I fully agree with Jeroen on this, -Werror problems should be reported directly to upstream if people want to help them on fixing warnings. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 05/14/2012 06:03 PM, hasufell wrote: On 05/14/2012 06:13 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: On Mon, 2012-05-14 at 17:44 +0200, hasufell wrote: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=260867 However, I don't see references to ebuild policy (in devmanual or howtos) how to handle Werror. Is there a common opinion on that. And shouldn't we add that to the documentation then? -Werror is unwanted in anything that links to glib, gtk+, or other gnome libraries. This is because gnome upstream developers have been adding compiler warnings for usage of deprecated API which, despite being deprecated, will in all likelihood remain supported for years; -Werror turns those warnings into fatal build errors, and tracking down all instances of deprecated API use twice a year (after a new version of gnome is released) increases maintenance burden for little benefit. -Alexandre. So, I will file a documentation bug unless someone can point me in the right direction. I didn't find a reference to that issue. Open a bug, write a devmanual patch and I will be happy to apply it - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPsVXFAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCu6wQAL4PnIdPbockkXyrQY0srnWw Y+3bPlaLJgMecHFwiLzA6LNzk6Tc69JmPio0kGvGKxgL+lfsdhwq3FPqqq8X92lU Ao+gIdxr4ALGZNS4b5bJAdgQHSNo8NndezBaNFjXzKAr5fzI449/6oFQwucDFA/a c2smuoKfK690RP4dLjoB0uXvFmTyCRHpUK8mikaXxnMnQlQ0DpkzuVAWJHaR7u1e XuuMMHlaaQ/EJMt1p1VXfvkekTHQ60R0U/CuDNc5CjjAQRJpqIao7quwZAg0OMeY ty56OC5hu/AdqAngnEY3wUAt/iho6yDCUhKM0Z4lEHVgsJWDmZuMF3yidZTbXIP1 7Zg73zqHRfYUJLMqyWiXy7+32gTTlIjZGivbWK6KH0QB55pdKindWmsUcQfiblTD yhfOhTur6w89GH7uepB+jMPY5VRk55z3qQ1wVUe1b+rCRrgDeGAe+AIh6TWOxsrE EeuRSe9CWFR85sCFlACevTRNnZ40Nfms/Cr48eDzNNbS7Ldfmb231DHB90m1MWMT /nHRKjwYmspEnE4e3qwjSgTHvJufkm0A08cEWgUBBXxjaepsRgKfXSIrJBVHqL7T xJPKzN9zm8K3nEnQC9bXfcm4XwoerUDbSPLeIUzHTPURJHO5b1hQkhCPfwrhA9b8 Kt5bsmo1KEmD9sGBzREr =471E -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-dev] -Werror unwanted?
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
