On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 08:02 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > SHOULD: If any form of networking over IPv4 networking is supported, the > > same functionality over IPv6 should also be supported, and should be > > enabled by default if the IPv4 support is. > > > > MUST: If IPv4 networking is supported, but for some reason the 'SHOULD > > support IPv6' documented elsewhere is not obeyed, a bug must be opened > > which should block the IPv6 tracker bug, and should contain a full > > justification for the lack. > > requiring functionality in software is not part of the requirements for > PACKAGING the software. It's a question of code quality. > We don't have i18n requirements for extras software, either. Perhaps we should? I thought we at least required that they join us in the 21st century and operate correctly with UTF-8. Do we have _no_ written guidelines on the quality of the software we accept to be packaged? > so I do not think a must is appropriate. You're aware it was "SHOULD support IPv6", "else MUST explain why not", right? > the justification for the lack is not the duty of the packager. For that > you should talk to the upstream maintainer. Dealing with the upstream maintainer is the responsibility of the Fedora package maintainer. -- dwmw2
