On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 07:34:48PM +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:16:54 +0200, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > It's a development-only > > option. You have no idea what gcc will decide is a warning in future, so > > it's effectively a "Please break my build in six months" toggle. > > I believe -Werror is appropriate for .src.rpm as only .arch.rpm is what is > being shipped to the real users. -Werror is only of concern to the package > maintainer who should keep warnings under control. -Werror is probably the > most easy way to keep them non-regressing. Adding an additional warning to gcc that triggers for a specific application doesn't make that application any more broken than it was before the warning was added. If a package fails to build in a mass rebuild because -Werror was enabled then that's additional work for several people to fix something that may not have ever actually been broken. Warnings are appropriate during development. -Werror may even make sense when packagers are performing local builds before upload. I just don't think there's any way that the improvement in quality it'd bring to the distribution outweighs the extra effort involved in maintaining it whenever the toolchain changes. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
