On Mon Apr 26 18:02, Salvo Tomaselli wrote: > You have a missconception of "broken". > POSIX has a default value, the developers will read the POSIX documentation > and tell you to screw you if you do a bugreport saying that if you voluntarily > make your system non-compliant then their software doesn't work. Default does not mean "only permittable". If POSIX allows it to be set to either value, then no matter what the _default_ is, not coping with either is a bug. I don't believe that very many people are suggesting that not working with bindv6only=1 is not a bug which should be filed and fix when it occurs in the archive, nor that it should not be configurable to whatever setting we do not choose as the default. I agree - programs which don't work with the current setting are broken and should be fixed - but that does not mean we should go out of our way to exhibit such brokenness to our users. This seems like too much being contrary because it's technically allowed and declaiming the results not to be our problem, even though it breaks a lot of systems. I think we should change the default back _and_ work towards fixing all the applications, without making them instantly RC buggy in the mean time. It smacks of 'uncoordinated transition' to me. Matt -- Matthew Johnson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature