Re: [Devil-linux-develop] Opinion please; What do you think?

Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> Andrzej,
> 
> I don't recall, but is it possible that I actually removed the  
> "--fatal-warnings" from the patch?
> Can you compare with the original version from the LFS website?

Heiko, you don't. This situation is in original lfs patches. I think, this is 
policy decision of Robert Connolly at lfs. In this same patch at 4.5.1 and 
4.5.3 he added intentionally in gcc.c line:
+  %{!no-fatal-warnings:--fatal-warnings} "

So this is current policy. And generally: proper decision.

> I don't think it makes sense to modify every package. Actually the  
> right approach would be to find/create patches that will correct the  
> compiler warnings and replace the less secure code. But that's a lot  
> of work...

Yes, this is lot of work. Some packages can be upgraded to version without 
this warnings. But i.e. gzip is not corrected from old times. So there is 
needed patch in gcc or CC="gcc -no-fatal-warnings" in the script.

For first time I will use modified myself pie patch at 4.5.3 for find other 
problems. After I will try to do statistics about packages generating 
warnings. And after I will report this. We will think, what is better.

Regards

-- 
Andrzej Odyniec

---
Ta wiadomość została sprawdzona na obecność wirusów przez oprogramowanie antywirusowe Avast.
http://www.avast.com