Packaging guidelines: IPv6

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Wed Jul 5 12:50:39 UTC 2006

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 07:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 12:43 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> >>Would anyone object if I amended the PackageReviewGuidelines to include
> >>something along the lines of...
> >>
> >>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.
> Keep in mind the "MUST" proposal is only to *document* (via bugzilla) 
> IPv6 deficiency.  Personally, I consider this a good thing.

I believe it depends on the definition of "full justification for the
lack."  As Seth said, particular functionality is not part of the
requirements for packaging it, so having to write a long justification
as to why IPv6 isn't present seems wrong.

If "upstream doesn't support it" is sufficient, then I'd be ok with it.
The intention is a bit unclear perhaps.  Is it to simply track which
packages lack IPv6 support, or is it to force all of them to add


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list