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

Re: Packaging guidelines: IPv6



On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 14:32 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 08:24 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > And if a package in Core doesn't support IPv6 what happens?  Does it get
> > thrown out of Core (and by the proposed standards Extras as well)?
> 
> No. It gets fixed. Because we have package _maintainers_ in Core, not
> just package-monkeys.

And that's viable for people who have time and skill to do so.  Extras
developers who wish to do that are always welcome to.  Those that can't
can certainly work with upstream.

> We're working on that already -- the first step is identifying all the
> packages which need fixing, and filing bugs. Hence the growing list at
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=195271

That's great.  Personally, I have no problems with adding Extras
packages to that bug.  However, I don't see it as a requirement.

The major point here is, it should not be a blocker if something doesn't
support IPv6 at the moment.  Somewhere someone found such a package
useful and spent time to push it through review.  You might think that's
crap, but one man's crap is another man's treasure.

An analogy for you:  I have a VCR from 1984 in my house.  It's almost as
old as I am.  It's ugly, heavy, big, and loud.  I consider it crappy
even.  But it _works_ and I find it useful.  I'm not going to throw it
away just because it doesn't support playing a shiny disc.

josh


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