> John Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Let me hijack this a little. How many of you WARNS= adding people > > consider different compile/code paths than the one your machine > > exercise? For instance the one "make release" will exercise? The > > WARNS=1 in libexec/Makefile.inc breaks "make release" because > > telnetd is then compiled, but it isn't warning free. > > This is a good reason why non-zero WARNS should only be set in leaf > Makefiles.
IMO, this is a good reason to not have WARNS contain -Werror at this time. NO_WERROR is a good way to fix this (again IMO). I see a great need to let warnings "hang out", and in an ideal world I see an need for (new) warnings to break things. I see no need for warnings to hold back a project as important as GCC3, and NO_WERROR is the cleanest solution. I do not expect others to agree with (or like) this. M -- o Mark Murray \_ FreeBSD Services Limited O.\_ Warning: this .sig is umop ap!sdn To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
