Packaging guidelines: IPv6

[Christian.Iseli at licr.org]

nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net said:
> There's so much material to package and so little time. You don't do FE
> packagers any favour by accepting everything they propose blindly.

Please.  I'm not sure how you can interpret what I wrote as
"accepting everything they propose blindly".

FE is a collection of packages that someone found useful enough to take the 
time to generate a clean package spec and push through review.  We have 
duplicated functionnality in many packages.  We offer choice.  We also do our 
best to avoid bad packages.  But I have a hard time equating missing feature 
with bad, that's all.

> Sometimes
> providing a checklist of strongly recommended technical features will help
> them choose between competing apps. And they don't discover after months of
> gruelling packaging work they bet on the wrong horse - no one's interested in
> foo app because bar does the same (and is IPv6/UTF-8/x86-64/GTK-2 whatever
> compatible) 

I'm not convinced packagers choose software to package randomly.  I'm sure 
they have a reason when they try to package something, and if they choose to 
package foo instead of bar: why do you think it's a problem ?  If bar is 
useful and so much better, someone is bound to package it at some point...

					Christian