On 14-09-2018 16:29:43 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 4:20 PM Michael Orlitzky <m...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > On 09/14/2018 03:58 PM, Richard Yao wrote: > > >> > > >> No one has answered the question: what do you do when a stable package > > >> breaks because of a new warning? > > >> > > >> ...> > > > Wouldn’t this be largely covered as part of GCC stabilization? We could > > > reserve the right to kill -Werror in a package where it blocks GCC > > > stabilization if the maintainer does not handle it in a timely manner. > > >> > > > > They would be uncovered during GCC stabilization, but then you're right > > back in the original situation: how do you fix the stable package? The > > only answer that doesn't violate some other policy is to patch it in a > > new revision and wait for it to stabilize again. > > > > Other questions arise: Do we block stabilization of clang et al.? > > > > Presumably we could make it a blocker, so then portage won't install > the new stable toolchain. That buys time and only affects users of > that particular package. But, as I pointed out before you can do that > without using -Werror - just block installation with an unqualified > toolchain. > > You would only use an approach like this for packages where QA was > fairly important, so the inconvenience would be worth it.
Perhaps, if one persists on going this route, only do this for platforms that upstream supports, such that arches which will suffer from this (typically ppc, sparc, ...) don't have to be blocked by this. Fabian -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
