On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:36:32AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > In that case, I'd say they aren't bugs at all. It may be that a FTBFS with > clang is a symptom of some underlying issue that should be addressed, but I > don't think non-wishlist bugs should be filed ONLY on the basis of that FTBFS. > All that does is impose a burden on package maintainers to determine if the > FTBFS is a real issue or not. I don't think that's appropriate for a MBF. It's not like clang has non-standard ideas regarding the spec, often times these errors are more strict readings of the spec, and relying on gcc's quirks isn't a great idea. If code can be fixed, it'd a good idea, since gcc may (and has, in the past), changed non-standard behavior to be more correct. minor severity sounds good to me :) Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature