On 2018-09-10 23:04, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> That it wasn't caught before being stabilized on several arches was
> indeed bad, but that likely says more about our stabilization procedures
> than the quality of the underlying package's upstream choices.
Eh, this depends on architecture. Not
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:31 PM Rich Freeman wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM Mike Gilbert wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:56 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/10/18 10:51 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> > > > Consider again the bug that started this. The
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:48 PM, Richard Yao wrote:
>
>
>
>>> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>>
On 9/10/18 11:21 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
It is indeed an insurmountable task to write
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:27 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>
>> On 9/10/18 11:21 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
>>> On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>>> It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free
>>> from the beginning across
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 5:18 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
> wrote:
>
> Fabian Groffen schrieb:
>>> On 09-09-2018 11:22:41 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> -Werror has caught bugs that could have resulted in data loss in ZFS in the
>>> past thanks to it being built in userspace as part of
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 4:59 PM, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
>
> Ühel kenal päeval, E, 10.09.2018 kell 22:56, kirjutas Kristian
> Fiskerstrand:
>>> 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
> On Sep 10, 2018, at 10:19 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>
>> On 09-09-2018 11:22:41 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
>> -Werror has caught bugs that could have resulted in data loss in ZFS in the
>> past thanks to it being built in userspace as part of zdb. So it is useful
>> for integrity too, not
On 9/10/18 11:35 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>
> I fully understand why in the general case this is considered undesirable.
>
> But in very specific cases it can make sense to err on the side of
> caution, and the rigid -Werror policy gets in the way. This is what the
> initial
Kristian Fiskerstrand schrieb:
On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free
from the beginning across architectures, compiler versions, etc. But
that is not the goal anyway. It is examining the situation and
On 9/10/18 11:31 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
> 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...
exactly
--
Kristian Fiskerstrand
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net
fpr:94CB AFDD
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 5:01 PM Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:56 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand 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
On 9/10/18 11:21 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free
>> from the beginning across architectures, compiler versions, etc. But
>> that is not the goal anyway. It is
Mart Raudsepp schrieb:
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.
And losing users and thus relevance in the process. Not everyone goes
to bugzilla
On 9/10/18 11:19 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> It is indeed an insurmountable task to write code that is warning-free
> from the beginning across architectures, compiler versions, etc. But
> that is not the goal anyway. It is examining the situation and taking
> appropriate action, and
Matt Turner schrieb:
This sounds good in theory, but I think it's pretty well established
that in practice this isn't effective and instead is a large waste of
time.
I think even the thread starter stated that -Werror is unnecessary in the
vast majority of cases.
In fact, the foundational
Fabian Groffen schrieb:
On 09-09-2018 11:22:41 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
-Werror has caught bugs that could have resulted in data loss in ZFS in the
past thanks to it being built in userspace as part of zdb. So it is useful for
integrity too, not just security (although arguably, integrity is
On 9/10/18 11:04 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 9/10/18 11:01 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>
>> It's quite a bit harder for a user to remove -Werror from the build
>> system, assuming they can even interpret the error output.
>>
>
> Sure, but at some point it matters whether this is a leaf
On 9/10/18 11:01 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> It's quite a bit harder for a user to remove -Werror from the build
> system, assuming they can even interpret the error output.
>
Sure, but at some point it matters whether this is a leaf package or
something that is a core dependency.
That it wasn't
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:56 PM Kristian Fiskerstrand 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
On 9/10/18 10:56 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand 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
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 10.09.2018 kell 22:56, kirjutas Kristian
Fiskerstrand:
> 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
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
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 1:34 PM Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn
wrote:
>
> Jason Zaman schrieb:
> >> No. With -Werror, upstream indicates that if a warning occurs, the build
> >> should fail and the resulting code not be installed on user systems.
> >>
> >> Instead, someone knowledgeable should look
Jason Zaman schrieb:
No. With -Werror, upstream indicates that if a warning occurs, the build
should fail and the resulting code not be installed on user systems.
Instead, someone knowledgeable should look at the situation *first* and
determine whether it is a bogus warning, a trivial issue, or
On 9/7/2018 9:46 AM, Brian Evans wrote:
> Since these tools are run on a build host, they should be in BDEPENDS
> for new EAPIs.
>
> I've also taken the liberty of declaring what EAPIs are supported as
> the lists will need to be adjusted in the future.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
On 09-09-2018 11:22:41 -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> -Werror has caught bugs that could have resulted in data loss in ZFS in the
> past thanks to it being built in userspace as part of zdb. So it is useful
> for integrity too, not just security (although arguably, integrity is part of
>
On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 01:46:51AM +0200, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> 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,
27 matches
Mail list logo
