On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:43:02AM +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote: > > It shouldn't be an error, this warning (rarely) has false positives and > > warns even about code that is never executed. That doesn't mean we > > shouldn't be grepping build logs for those warnings and letting maintainers > > know that they should analyse them (a job for rpmdiff or similar). > > Ok, not possible to make it an error. > So what about not tagging automatically packages with those "always > overflow destination buffer" warnings in Mass rebuild to prevent > possible later mass SIGABRTs? Just greping for that message and later > posting suspicious packages on fedora-devel-list - to let those package > maintainers choose whether it is false positive or thing affecting the > package functionality... If we can have some kind of white list for that, why not. E.g. glibc build has a whole bunch of them, in the testcases that verify the -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE functionality and those are all intentional. Jakub -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
