On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 07:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > seth vidal wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 12:43 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > >>Would anyone object if I amended the PackageReviewGuidelines to include > >>something along the lines of... > >> > >>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. > > Keep in mind the "MUST" proposal is only to *document* (via bugzilla) > IPv6 deficiency. Personally, I consider this a good thing. I believe it depends on the definition of "full justification for the lack." As Seth said, particular functionality is not part of the requirements for packaging it, so having to write a long justification as to why IPv6 isn't present seems wrong. If "upstream doesn't support it" is sufficient, then I'd be ok with it. The intention is a bit unclear perhaps. Is it to simply track which packages lack IPv6 support, or is it to force all of them to add support. josh
