-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:13:28PM +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote: > The initial argument was: > > We in Debian are in a good position to defend our users from the > > fallout from this problem. We could change our default compiler > > options to favour safety, and provide more traditional semantics. > > The safety argument was presented as one that dominate all the > others.
I disagree. It just says that there is a safety issue and we could improve that situation. This is a public discussion, of course counterarguments about other things, such as performance and usability, are allowed. > I just say that other aspects must *also* be evaluated and balanced. > And an small increase in safety is not always the best thing for the > Debian project if it leads to severe performance/usability/... issues. I agree, and I think everyone does. But at the same time, where we want that balance to be may change with time. The quote above suggests that we may want to shift towards more security. But nowhere does it imply or suggest that there is no balance. Thanks, Bas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJXFpfsAAoJEJzRfVgHwHE6NeAP/jm7Z8Mrxkvo2UipoCKShQNe 3ig1WMVcnWV/KIlxmMNdYR4Ey10bcBizqKw+htJ/D2gxSqaQChXrLHmZwqaCEpV5 7XMMLJ8oOwLevZSR18UR7L45ncCXrlzqCUaX72LFa9tHDVNc+V1cTT0WwiMCVGT3 gPbsluUGOsbXRHhdj4+C7CnstCItnVKrp0ogXOyDR2S4QFy7vBPEOf+VnD1asOxO Y85FBWyA1RMDdOrhKZJneOrUahICBmTnyzdH/vEwB0EOBwweZgQymZecy85PUIFk za5G2dnQa50DhKua7zH8zSHjfkn6iB4AlO9T8igoXs1ZQuMrfXFto7F+N80TItPW wZKD8jvkrNs5UnkG6WCrn7aXUYsho3DwHvTFtRu6U4S/Q/63WuIWST3JUp8KJNyr uzz0FpnsfgXA8dVfGkrj0rl4igC9xUf1K3suHNxARK0k/oag6TO8bOJ8efcgGLUq kK7Sq+daWpYDMiD/cYjr5dFvC0hQY+AKRPMunhi7pVAoy+ORnCp0jotwCFBa4sWQ 0BdttvTLGDYizwUUW7m97zgdKWNxShMxFjSsGIMkIx7ozq9q3+lsUG/eZODOy/uh 9TOkJiWHAIfHSdg6VtMGZRw1MGe9JtyT5KyCc3j08I56yoSVnv3yYdspe1v9ZnBi iWvO5HSNETQfgFf9SlnI =eyKN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
