On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 07:56 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 13:50 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > 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. > > /me puts on a troll hat > > Support for IPv6 is not a question of quality. It's a feature. It's > often a geo-centric issue as well. I live in .us where IPv6 support > sucks from the ISPs. I could care less. Luddites unite! > > /me takes the troll hat off > > > > > 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. > > Sure. And it's not unreasonable to even open an upstream report if a > package lacks IPv6 support. But _requiring_ maintainers to do so is a > different story. > ding ding ding - winner. I say let the people who care about ipv6 be the guardians of this sort of thing. -sv
