Re: Using -Werror in CFLAGS for a debian package build
peter green <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Is this really THAT big a deal? Is it really worth making dubious
> changes to build dependencies (gcc in this case but a similar saga is
> going on with dash) to temporarlly hide (and therefore make harder to
> fix) FTBFS bugs that are usually trivial to fix in the package that
> suffers from them (worst case you can just change the cflags in this
> case or set CONFIG_SHELL in the dash/configure case.
I'm not sure.
My personal inclination for my own packages would be along the lines you
describe: just let them FTBFS and have people fix them. I wouldn't have
minded that for my own packages, although it would have given this
specific issue a bit more urgency than it felt like it deserved (but then
I don't use -Werror for exactly that reason).
But I'm also not on the release team, and I can imagine adding a couple
hundred new FTBFS problems in the middle of transitions could have really
ruined their week. It's problematic enough right now that GCC 4.6 seems
to be struggling on armel; I have two packages that currently can't build
due to internal compiler errors in armel.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>