Re: bindv6only again
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:46:17PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
>> If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
>> explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
>> http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not
>> in testing) didn't manage that. There are really no reasons to revert.
> Did you read this mailing list? (or even that bug to the end).
>
> Because you're stating something false.
560238 is blocked only by 579033, end of bug report mentions also wine,
which I've missed. Reports against other packages are already closed. Am
I missing something else?
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administrator,
>
> I am aware of that. It is the default value that we are speaking about.
>
>> applications expecting specific setting are broken anyway (on Linux),
>> no matter what RFC says and what default on Debian is.
>
> This is of course nonsense. Choosing the default value that is
> incompatible with all other Unix systems (with the exception of OpenBSD)
> and then complaining about applications being broken doesn't strike me
> as a particularly productive attitude.
My point was, that applications claiming compatibility with Linux cannot
assume particular value of bindv6only regardless of RFC or any value
Debian chooses. I've reported bugs about incompatibility with
bindv6only=1 before the whole discussion popped up.
We are not incompatible with other Unices, only with few buggy
applications.
Jarek.
Reply to: