On 03/28/2011 07:40 PM, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:08:33 +0200
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 03/28/2011 04:58 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
In libguestfs we have some pretty complex autotools magic to deal
with all this:
http://git.a
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 5:16 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Packages adding -Werror by themselves are poorly designed. Contact their
> upstreams and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I pointed them to this (very informative) thread
>
> In some (rare) cases, packages adding -Werror have --disable-w
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:08:33 +0200
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/28/2011 04:58 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> > Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> In libguestfs we have some pretty complex autotools magic to deal
> >> with all this:
> >>
> >> http://git.annexia.org/?p=libguestfs.git;a=blob;f=configure.ac;
On 03/28/2011 04:58 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> In libguestfs we have some pretty complex autotools magic to deal with
>> all this:
>>
>> http://git.annexia.org/?p=libguestfs.git;a=blob;f=configure.ac;h=f1b56d2dbe9a118901f7426bcc176f624d841f63;hb=HEAD#l67
>
> CHASM has si
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> In libguestfs we have some pretty complex autotools magic to deal with
> all this:
>
> http://git.annexia.org/?p=libguestfs.git;a=blob;f=configure.ac;h=f1b56d2dbe9a118901f7426bcc176f624d841f63;hb=HEAD#l67
CHASM has similar logic for CMake (also clang support):
ht
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 02:54:56PM -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
> 2011/3/27 Ralf Corsepius :
> > On 03/27/2011 11:22 AM, gia...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I'm trying to rebuild a package with an autotools based toolchain and
> >> it's failing because they use -Werror and gcc 4.6 spits out few new
> >> wa
On 03/28/2011 12:48 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
>> 2011/3/27 Ralf Corsepius:
>>> Packages adding -Werror by themselves are poorly designed.
>>
>> Just to learn: Ralf, Why do you say that? :-)
>
> Using -Werror by default is a very bad idea. Warnings can have false
> positives,
Sergio Belkin wrote:
> 2011/3/27 Ralf Corsepius :
>> Packages adding -Werror by themselves are poorly designed.
>
> Just to learn: Ralf, Why do you say that? :-)
Using -Werror by default is a very bad idea. Warnings can have false
positives, or otherwise be harmless. And in particular, differen
2011/3/27 Ralf Corsepius :
> On 03/27/2011 11:22 AM, gia...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I'm trying to rebuild a package with an autotools based toolchain and
>> it's failing because they use -Werror and gcc 4.6 spits out few new
>> warnings on the code.
>
> Packages adding -Werror by themselves are poorly
On 03/27/2011 11:22 AM, gia...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm trying to rebuild a package with an autotools based toolchain and
> it's failing because they use -Werror and gcc 4.6 spits out few new
> warnings on the code.
Packages adding -Werror by themselves are poorly designed. Contact their
upstreams
On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:22:48 +0200, gia...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm trying to rebuild a package with an autotools based toolchain and
> it's failing because they use -Werror and gcc 4.6 spits out few new
> warnings on the code.
You should fix those erors and and submit them upstream.
> Now, is it
I'm trying to rebuild a package with an autotools based toolchain and
it's failing because they use -Werror and gcc 4.6 spits out few new
warnings on the code.
Now, is it possible to quickly disable -Werror from the ./configure
command line? Right now the only solution I found (short of fixing the
12 matches
Mail list logo
