On Sun, 24 Sep 2000, Greg Stark wrote: > But all Manoj is really saying is we should be careful not to release broken "But all Henrique is..." Manoj got annoyed with *my* post, not the opposite :-) > packages. Rather he's raising a particular failure mode as something to watch > for but he's said that in a way that assumes everything ipv6 related is > probably broken by default, which is kind of annoying. I'm sorry. English is not my primary language, and it came out more forcefully than what I wanted. Actually, I'm more concerned with not-fully-ipv6-enabled packages (which weren't patched for ipv6 support) malfunctioning in rather dangerous ways... I do expect the ipv6 porters to test their patches rather throughoutly before deeming them ready for general release, but I *don't* expect most apps to act sanely under ipv6 if they were not written or patched with ipv6 in mind. If we enable and configure ipv6 by default, IMHO we must accept the cost of testing the entire standard, important and required packages for holes dealing with ipv6... especially those packages which the ipv6 porters didn't have a look at and for which upstream does not provide ipv6 support out-of-the-box. That's what I should have said in my first post :-( -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Attachment:
pgpp8HbpFvAIb.pgp
Description: PGP signature