3 ms·
The article we’re linking to very specifically asks open source software to use -Werror. They’re saying we should just have a Dockerfile, and force people to u
by strenholme 5y ago
The article we’re linking to very specifically asks open source software to use -Werror. They’re saying we should just have a Dockerfile, and force people to use Docker to compile an open source application, which is a rather disingenuous solution: Dockerfiles can only run Linux, and there’s a lot more than Linux out there (FreeBSD, etc.)
There was a time my open source project was running on Solaris, MacOS X, Linux (multiple distros), and Windows. Making something run only on Docker is a little restrictive by comparison.
- 4ad 5y agoYeah, although in reality the OSS angle is kind of moot. There can only be one party in control of dependencies. If there is more than one party involved in the development of a product, only the downstream consumer can be in charge of dependencies. This happens all the time with closed source projects too, it's not specific to OSS. There is a difference between being a leaf and a node in a tree of producers and consumers.
- strenholme 5y agoThanks for your reply. With OSS, the exact compiler and build toolchain varies from user to user, so good OSS code tries to be as easy as possible to compile, i.e. avoid -Werror or anything else that deliberately stops compiling.
- 4ad 5y agoOf course, the GP tries to instill the idea that open source is not "professional" when in fact in OSS you will see far more variation in development practices and deployment practices than in closed source world. It's a strict superset.
- ghostwriter 5y agouse Nix instead of Docker, if platform support is your only concern. It also solves the issue with "good OSS code tries to be as easy as possible to compile" that you mention below.