On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:31 PM Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:56 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand <k...@gentoo.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 9/10/18 10:51 PM, Matt Turner wrote: > > > > Consider again the bug that started this. The maintainer had not built > > > > this configuration. None of the arch teams had built this > > > > configuration until I did for the last architecture Cc'd. The patch > > > > committed doesn't change anything installed on the system, if not for > > > > Werror preventing the code from building. > > > > > > one way to look at it though, is that it is a valuable upstream > > > contribution that this configuration produces the error, so Gentoo is > > > contributing to upstream development because of it. > > > > As an end user of Gentoo, I may not care about "contributing to > > upstream"; I just want the software to compile and install. > > > > For more critical packages (like the example of zfs) whether it > compiles and installs isn't 1/10th as important as whether it eats my > data...
I was clearly responding to the "contributing upstream" argument, which has nothing to do with eating data.
