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

Re: Packaging guidelines: IPv6



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.
> 

1. How the hell should I, as the packager, know this?
2. I don't have access to any ipv6 networks - how and WHY should I test
this?
3. why is it my responsibility to document this and clutter up bugzilla?
If there is someone with a hard-on about ipv6 then they can do it. I
don't need to write up justifications for why there isn't a translation
into mandarin chinese for a package, why should I do the same for some
other FEATURE?

-sv



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