Packaging guidelines: IPv6

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 08:02 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > SHOULD: If any form of networking over IPv4 networking is supported, the
> > same functionality over IPv6 should also be supported, and should be
> > enabled by default if the IPv4 support is.
> > 
> > MUST: If IPv4 networking is supported, but for some reason the 'SHOULD
> > support IPv6' documented elsewhere is not obeyed, a bug must be opened
> > which should block the IPv6 tracker bug, and should contain a full
> > justification for the lack. 
> 
> requiring functionality in software is not part of the requirements for
> PACKAGING the software.

It's a question of code quality.

> We don't have i18n requirements for extras software, either.

Perhaps we should? I thought we at least required that they join us in
the 21st century and operate correctly with UTF-8. Do we have _no_
written guidelines on the quality of the software we accept to be
packaged?

> so I do not think a must is appropriate.

You're aware it was "SHOULD support IPv6", "else MUST explain why not",
right?

> the justification for the lack is not the duty of the packager. For that
> you should talk to the upstream maintainer.

Dealing with the upstream maintainer is the responsibility of the Fedora
package maintainer.

-- 
dwmw2