Packaging guidelines: IPv6

Christian.Iseli at Christian.Iseli at
Wed Jul 5 21:40:52 UTC 2006

skvidal at said:
> On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 20:37 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 07:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > 
> > > Keep in mind the "MUST" proposal is only to *document* (via bugzilla) 
> > > IPv6 deficiency.  Personally, I consider this a good thing.
> > 
> > Me too, but mileages vary.  These things do put some additional burden
> > on packagers and reviewers, but I think the situation is similar as with
> > let's say x86_64 not too long ago; there were similar objections and
> > concerns but I think eventually things worked out pretty well.
> except the onus of explaining what was broken was not on the packager. 

AFAIK, FE's mantra is still "upstream"

So if some software doesn't support IPv6, I fail to see why it should become 
a burden to the packager.  Just file a bug report upstream.

Of course, if upstream does provide IPv6 support then I agree the FE package 
should have that feature enabled.

Now if dwmw2 wants to force all Core packages to support IPv6, that's fine 
with me.  But I don't think mandating it for FE packages is right, nor 
implying that FE is a dumping ground simply because it doesn't mandate enough 
features.  We want working, maintained, secure packages, but we don't 
necessarily want creeping featuritism...


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list