RFC: Big Makefile patch for WARNS settings

[Doug Barton]

Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> The "default" would be the setting inherited by, eg,
> src/bin/Makefile.inc. This already has a WARNS=6, are you saying that
> debugging stuff under bin/ has been made more difficult by that change?

It certainly can be, yes. Although admittedly I don't spend a lot of
time debugging stuff under /bin.

> Why do we want bin/ to be WARNS-clean and not care about usr.bin/?

Red herring. I'd like everything to be as warns-clean as possible, I
just disagree that this change will do anything to improve it.

> One of the strengths of BSD in general that I have come to love is its
> higher consistency compared to most other systems. With WARNS=6 under
> bin/ and WARNS=2 under sbin/ this consistency is violated.

The thing that you're glossing over is that most of the stuff in /bin
is our code, and a lot of the stuff in /usr/[s]bin is contrib code.
Thus they actually ARE different. Then of course there is the whole
"Foolish consistency ...." issue.

>>> There's also a lot of
>>> work done by the DragonflyBSD folks which I intend to port peu a peu.
>> Can you elaborate on this? What work are you planning to port over,
>> and how does it depend on this default WARNS level issue?
> 
> See
> http://gitweb.dragonflybsd.org/dragonfly.git?a=search&h=HEAD&st=commit&s=WARNS6
> 
> It depends in no way on the included WARNS level, but "the big switch"
> needs to be done anyway, so why not upfront?

I disagree with your assertion that "the big switch needs to be done
anyway."

My personal preference would be to see first how many things will need
overrides (WARNS != 6) before deciding whether it's worth setting a
default.


hth,

Doug

-- 

	Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with
	a domain name makeover!    http://SupersetSolutions.com/