On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:50 PM Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> So if you're using -Werror to prevent a
> "vulnerable" package from being installed, it doesn't work, and can
> actually be harmful if it prevents me from using a better compiler.
>
Whether or not the new compiler is better,
Andrew Savchenko schrieb:
So my proposal is:
1) Deprecate QA policy with unconditional demand of -Werror removal.
2) Add to devmanual's chapter on -Werror an exception clause about
security-oriented software and maintainer's right to make final
decision.
Likely this proposal will not fly. I
/jsonfield 20180903-13:22 vdupras
69d02f6e520
sys-apps/microcode-ctl20180909-11:24 zlogene
6915ad82555
Additions:
dev-perl/Devel-CheckOS20180907-07:18 kentnl
e17b5bec66a
dev-perl/Dumbbench
Michał Górny schrieb:
Are you suggesting that
upstream is going to detect all those situations and prevent them from
occurring, or are you going to WONTFIX the resulting bugs?
No. With -Werror, upstream indicates that if a warning occurs, the build
should fail and the resulting code not be
On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 4:32 AM Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html#-werror-compiler-flag-not-removed
>
> I think this is wrong, see bugs 665464, 665538 for a recent
>
On 09/09/2018 07:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html#-werror-compiler-flag-not-removed
>
> I think this is wrong, see bugs 665464, 665538 for a recent
>
> On Sep 9, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
Hi!
Our current -Werror policy demands
On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Sep 2018, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
>> What I'm trying to do is to allow maintainers to keep -Werror if
>> they really want to do this, understand what they are doing and
>> have enough manpower to support this.
>
> Bug
> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
>>>
> On Sep 9, 2018, at 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
>>>
> On Sun, 09 Sep 2018, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> What I'm trying to do is to allow maintainers to keep -Werror if
> they really want to do this, understand what they are doing and
> have enough manpower to support this.
Bug 665464 has just proven that this doesn't work. That bug would not
On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 14:32 +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html#-werror-compiler-flag-not-removed
>
> I think this is wrong, see bugs 665464, 665538 for a
On Sun, 2018-09-09 at 11:22 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> > On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> >
> > Hi!
> >
> > Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
> >
> On Sep 9, 2018, at 7:32 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html#-werror-compiler-flag-not-removed
>
> I think this is wrong, see bugs 665464, 665538 for a
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 14:32:21 +0300
Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
> https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html#-werror-compiler-flag-not-removed
Which is great.
> I think this is wrong, see bugs 665464,
On Sun, 9 Sep 2018 15:03:11 +0200 Thomas Deutschmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I disagree. Either discuss to drop the entire policy about "-Werror" or
> don't but please do _not_ enter the game of differentiating between
> "normal" and something you call "security-orientated" packages.
You got me wrong.
Hi,
I disagree. Either discuss to drop the entire policy about "-Werror" or
don't but please do _not_ enter the game of differentiating between
"normal" and something you call "security-orientated" packages.
You will lose this game in the end.
If there's really a reason to allow "-Werror" it
Hi!
Our current -Werror policy demands unconditional removal:
https://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/common-mistakes/index.html#-werror-compiler-flag-not-removed
I think this is wrong, see bugs 665464, 665538 for a recent
discussion why.
My point is that in *most* cases -Werror indeed
18 matches
Mail list logo
