when attempting to emerge dev-tcltk/blt-2.4z-r10, the build fails during the install phase with the message "install aborted due to severe warnings shown above". I tried emerging dev-tcltk/blt-2.4z-r12 (currently masked for amd64) to meet my dependency needs, but it failed with similar results. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. emerge --oneshot --quiet '=dev-tcltk/blt-2.4z-r10' Actual Results: ebuild proceeds towards install stage, but dies "due to severe warnings shown above" (presumably compilation warnings shown in the build log — e.g. "bltObjConfig.c:1228:10: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]". Expected Results: ebuild should succeed without (fatal) compilation warnings. emerge --info and emerge -pqv results to follow in an attachment.
Created attachment 363956 [details] emerge --info --verbose '=dev-tcltk/blt-2.4z-r10::gentoo'
Created attachment 363958 [details] emerge -pqv '=dev-tcltk/blt-2.4z-r10::gentoo'
Created attachment 363960 [details] build log
... ebuild fails at install_qa_check due to "severe warnings" This is because you have set FEATURES=stricter. It's up to you whether stricter than strict is what you want, but you should probably disable that flag instead of wrongly concluding that the ebuild fails - instead it's a choice that you made.
It's odd that the specific warnings the QA check is so worried about aren't printed here.
So what is the problem here?
@portage team Is here a bug in portage? E.g. missing prints for the reason of the fail?
The missing QA warning is caused by the -q he's passing to emerge.
PLease give us a build.log without the -q/--quit or drop FEATURES=stricter.
So sorry for the misdirection, everyone — I misunderstood FEATURES=stricter. Interestingly enough, when I rebuilt with FEATURES=-stricter (which succeeded), the QA notice instructs to file a bug with upstream instead of here (which makes more sense in retrospect). I don't know if this is by design as a function of FEATURES=stricter (vs just FEATURES=strict) — but if not, maybe it would help to print the file-bugs-with-upstream advice on failure under FEATURES=stricter as well (to help return bugs to their rightful owners). Anyway, thank you again for your attention. I'll read through the Bug-Reporting Guide [1] more thoroughly and will triage suspected bugs on the forums until I better acclimate myself to what constitutes a valid sighting. [1]: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Bugzilla_HOWTO
