[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Packaging guidelines: IPv6



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.
> 
> > 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?

I assume basic security quality is at least part of the review process..
or I hope it is... 

if it is, then that is already about functionality and not packaging..
there would then seem to be a bit of a gray area (which is ok, it's what
us humans are good at by making smart decisions rather than by-the-book
decisions)...

And if there is really no functional requirements in the spec.. maybe
there should be a second spec/recommendation for functional things? That
could be useful for external projects as well, as a checklist in the
"did we forget anything to be useful to a wide audience" kind of way..


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]