Re: -Werror

[jnemeth%victoria.tc.ca@localhost (John Nemeth)]

On Mar 5, 12:16pm, John Marino wrote:
} On 10/13/2012 17:09, Alistair Crooks wrote:
} > The removal of -Werror from packages is wrong - here's why:
} >
} > 1.  The authors put it there in the first place.  They did this
} > consciously, for a reason - because they want their software to be
} > warning, as well as error free.  It would be good to respect their
} > wishes.  Now it may be that they don't have the platform or cpp defs
} > in place which cause warnings.  But I do know that they want to be
} > informed about this.
} 
} This statement makes a LOT of assumptions.
} 1.  That the authors made an informed decision when they picked it

     They probably did.  Easy to leave out, much more difficult to
fix the warnings.

} 2.  That leaving -Werror for releasing wasn't an oversight / mistake

     This is never a mistake.

} 3.  That the software is still maintained upstream

     This is the only thing that could be called an assumption.  The
correct thing in this case is to fix it or delete it.

} > 2. Moving to new versions of gcc has had this effect in the past.
} > We'll see it in the future, too. We've never used a club like -Werror,
} > there's no need.
} 
} I think this statement is false.
} Grepping for BUILDLINK transforms in makefile alone results in 38 
} packages *BEFORE* the recent commits.  Add 3 more for CONFIGURE_ARGS/ENV 
} and several more disabled through patches.  Clearly this club has been 
} used, quite often.

     You're talking about approximately 50 packages out of 10,875
(latest release announcement).  That's 0.46 per cent.  That is hardly
"quite often".  It can be used in cases where it is completely
impractical to fix the package, but given that it is a rather large and
blunt club, it shouild only be used as a last resort.  It is far more
preferable to fix the problems.

} > 4.  Authors will be upgrading packages to deal with new versions of
} > gcc too - they want their software to compile warning and error free
} > now as before.  So upgrading the package is usually a better long-term
} > sustainable way of doing this than staying down-level but masking
} > warnings which are already fixed.  Case in point - xymon.
} 
} Okay, I agree with this.
} Yes, having the newest version in pkgsrc is the best long-term approach. 
}   How do you accomplish that when the majority of the packages are 
} maintained by pkgsrc-users (which I equate as "nobody") and others only 
} update packages that interest them?

     pkgsrc-users should be equated as "everybody".  If you touch it,
fix it properly.  If that means updating it, so be it.

} > 7. -Werror is such a big club, it's being turned off on all platforms.
} > This is wrong. Not all platforms are the same, in terms of user base,
} > ability to get hands dirty, or system basics. And most especially of
} > users on that platform.
} 
} No user should expect to get his "hands dirty" just as pkgsrc committers 
} should not be expected to fix actual bugs (beyond bringing in an 

     This is only true in fantasyland.  We live in the real world where
real bugs do need to be fixed.

} approved upstream patch).  I don't see anything wrong treating all 
} platforms the same.
} 
}-- End of excerpt from John Marino