Packaging guidelines: IPv6
Christian.Iseli at licr.org
Christian.Iseli at licr.org
Wed Jul 5 21:40:52 UTC 2006
skvidal at linux.duke.edu 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...
Christian
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list