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

Re: Packaging guidelines: IPv6



On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 07:56 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 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.
> 

ding ding ding - winner.

I say let the people who care about ipv6 be the guardians of this sort
of thing. 

-sv




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