Packaging guidelines: IPv6

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Wed Jul 5 12:56:14 UTC 2006

On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 13:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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.

/me puts on a troll hat

Support for IPv6 is not a question of quality.  It's a feature.  It's
often a geo-centric issue as well.  I live in .us where IPv6 support
sucks from the ISPs.  I could care less.  Luddites unite!

/me takes the troll hat off

> > 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.

Sure.  And it's not unreasonable to even open an upstream report if a
package lacks IPv6 support.  But _requiring_ maintainers to do so is a
different story.


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list