Re: Fixing configure failures from newer gcc

[Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 at 04:40, Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%pkgsrc.org@localhost> wrote:
>
> * On 2025-10-20 at 06:28 BST, Benny Siegert wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 19 Oct 2025, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>To me, a project shipping with -Werror on by default signals that they
> >>take their code quality seriously.
> >>It's then up to downstream to decide what to do with this - strip
> >>-Werror and ship - or notice that the warning is for a real problem
> >>and file a bug.
> >
> >I disagree. While a project may use -Werror during development,
> >handing such a build option to a user is a bad idea. As a user, I want
> >to build your software, not fix warnings. The user may be on a
> >different OS, architecture, etc., triggering different warnings, which
> >are now errors.

If it were 2000, when autoconf was at its zenith, I would have likely
agreed with you.
Like jperkin said, put it behind maintainer mode.

But this is 2025.  The inconsistent compilers, broken headers, and
missing functions that we all suffered through, and drove the need for
tools like autoconf, seem to be under control.  At least if I stick to
relatively mainstream distros released in the last 5 years(1).

For instance, I just removed a garish hack involving linux kernel
headers, musl, and include order - the systems that need it are now >5
years old and, presumably, are switched off.

(1) Three BSDs, debian based, fedora based, 32-bit (64-bit is
implied), and something with musl.