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

Re: Bindv6only once again

On 14 June 2010 16:35, Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it> wrote:
> I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> is unwilling to fix.

Is there software that still requires this proprietary Java
implementation? I hear openjdk is getting better all the time.

Is proprietary Java the only reason we should keep having bindv6only=0?

Why not just set bindv6only=0 if this is installed on a system? e.g.
you could make it part of the installer deb.

> Unless the maintainer believes that we can get a fixed version before
> the release then I propose to stop setting bindv6only=1 by default.
> While it was a useful experiment, since it allowed to expose and fix a
> fair number of bugs, it should not compromise the general usability of
> Debian systems.
> I do not consider the POSIX-related arguments interesting.

I would be disappointed to think Debian has decided not to "do the
right thing" for all of Debian because it might break a proprietary
application that some people might use.

For me, bindv6only=0 seems like an ugly hack designed to make existing
applications work without change. Although all these arguments have
been hashed out before, no point to repeat them.
Brian May <brian@microcomaustralia.com.au>

Reply to: