On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:51:15PM -0700, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:34 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
> >
> > Jason Zaman schrieb:
> > >> No. With -Werror, upstream indicates that if a warning occurs, the build
> > >> should fail and the resulting code not be install
Is there anyone still working on libav support? It appears to me that
transition[1] and stabilisation[2] trackers are stuck for a long time without
activity. Missing libav-12 stabilisation means that in several stable
packages, USE=libav is already inaccessible without manual unmasking of the
u
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM Jason Zaman wrote:
>
> Replying to a somewhat random post. There are two separate things here
> that people are discussing here but are not the same thing.
Three, really...
>
> 1) We want to know when a package has terrible warnings when installing
> it so we can
On 9/12/18 10:50 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM Jason Zaman wrote:
>>
>> Replying to a somewhat random post. There are two separate things here
>> that people are discussing here but are not the same thing.
>
> Three, really...
>
>>
>> 1) We want to know when a packa
> If a package really ought to have
> -Werror due to a very good reason and is properly maintained to support it,
> then there is nothing wrong with inventing a USE flag to give users the
> option of enforcing that.
There is something very *much* wrong with that.
1) It's trivial to enforce -Werro
On Sep 12, 2018, at 4:28 PM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>> If a package really ought to have
>> -Werror due to a very good reason and is properly maintained to support it,
>> then there is nothing wrong with inventing a USE flag to give users the
>> option of enforcing that.
>
> There is somet
On 2018-09-12 16:50, Rich Freeman wrote:
> There is also the case where we want these warnings to block
> installation, because the risk of there being a problem is too great.
I really disagree with that. So many devs have already said multiple
times in this thread that "-Werror" is only turning e
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 6:55 PM Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
>
> On 2018-09-12 16:50, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > There is also the case where we want these warnings to block
> > installation, because the risk of there being a problem is too great.
>
> I really disagree with that. So many devs have alrea
Alon Bar-Lev schrieb:
We
are unique as permutations and architectures that are used by Gentoo
users are so diverse that we find issues that nobody else finds.
This needs to be highlighted more, as it is why suggestions that the
maintainer can simply put -Werror back on their own system are ins
Hi!
So from the discussion I gather that -Werror has both desirable and
undesirable effects. Question is, can we somehow mitigate the undesirable
effects while still retaining the desirable effects as much as possible?
Requirements:
* Bother the user enough that they will report the problem,
Thomas Deutschmann schrieb:
So let's turn this around: Please show us a *real* case within Gentoo
where "-Werror" prevented a real problem which wouldn't otherwise being
noticed. E.g. show us a package which was merged on user's system,
replacing a working previous version of that package causing
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:03 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> Now, I could buy that -Werror turns NEW warnings into fatal errors,
> due to the use of a newer toolchain, since upstream probably didn't
> test with that toolchain and thus wouldn't have seen the warning.
Yes, exactly. This is one of the majo
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:32 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
>
> Alon Bar-Lev schrieb:
> > We
> > are unique as permutations and architectures that are used by Gentoo
> > users are so diverse that we find issues that nobody else finds.
>
> This needs to be highlighted more, as it is why sug
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:52 PM Matt Turner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:03 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> > Now, I could buy that -Werror turns NEW warnings into fatal errors,
> > due to the use of a newer toolchain, since upstream probably didn't
> > test with that toolchain and thus wouldn't
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:35 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
>
>
> Requirements:
>
> * Do not fail to build/install when a warning is encountered
On a particularly critical package like a filesystem, wouldn't we want
to still fail to install when a warning is encountered?
> Also possible
Rich Freeman schrieb:
Requirements:
* Do not fail to build/install when a warning is encountered
On a particularly critical package like a filesystem, wouldn't we want
to still fail to install when a warning is encountered?
Installation will proceed, but the user will get a big fat warning t
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 8:23 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
>
> Rich Freeman schrieb:
> >> Requirements:
> >>
> >> * Do not fail to build/install when a warning is encountered
> >
> > On a particularly critical package like a filesystem, wouldn't we want
> > to still fail to install when a
Rich Freeman schrieb:
If the user recognizes this as a critical package, then they can do the
research before deciding on whether to use the package as is, attempt to
downgrade, or wait until a fix is released.
But, you've ALREADY overwritten the previous version of the package
that presumably
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 5:11 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 7:52 PM Matt Turner wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 4:03 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
> > > Now, I could buy that -Werror turns NEW warnings into fatal errors,
> > > due to the use of a newer toolchain, since upstre
# Michał Górny (13 Sep 2018)
# Depends on old version of dev-libs/jsoncpp, blocking its pruning.
# Downstream maintainer is inactive to bump it. Removal in 30 days.
dev-lang/solidity
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
20 matches
Mail list logo
