Bug 492506 – dev-tcltk/blt-2.4z-r10 - 186 compiler warnings

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED NEEDINFO

[Description RubyTuesdayDONO 2013-11-25 14:54:18 UTC]

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.

[Comment 1 RubyTuesdayDONO 2013-11-25 14:55:35 UTC]

Created attachment 363956 [details]
emerge --info --verbose '=dev-tcltk/blt-2.4z-r10::gentoo'

[Comment 2 RubyTuesdayDONO 2013-11-25 14:56:34 UTC]

Created attachment 363958 [details]
emerge -pqv '=dev-tcltk/blt-2.4z-r10::gentoo'

[Comment 3 RubyTuesdayDONO 2013-11-25 15:03:11 UTC]

Created attachment 363960 [details]
build log

[Comment 4 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2013-11-25 19:34:47 UTC]

... 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.

[Comment 5 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) 2013-11-25 19:42:04 UTC]

It's odd that the specific warnings the QA check is so worried about aren't printed here.

[Comment 6 Justin Lecher (RETIRED) 2013-11-25 20:31:15 UTC]

So what is the problem here?

[Comment 7 Justin Lecher (RETIRED) 2013-11-26 07:23:04 UTC]

@portage team
Is here a bug in portage? E.g. missing prints for the reason of the fail?

[Comment 8 Sebastian Luther (few) 2013-11-26 08:41:40 UTC]

The missing QA warning is caused by the -q he's passing to emerge.

[Comment 9 Justin Lecher (RETIRED) 2013-11-26 08:44:03 UTC]

PLease give us a build.log without the -q/--quit or drop FEATURES=stricter.

[Comment 10 RubyTuesdayDONO 2013-11-26 12:45:28 UTC]

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