skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx said: > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 20:37 +0300, Ville Skytt�rote: > > On Wed, 2006-07-05 at 07:40 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > > > Keep in mind the "MUST" proposal is only to *document* (via bugzilla) > > > IPv6 deficiency. Personally, I consider this a good thing. > > > > Me too, but mileages vary. These things do put some additional burden > > on packagers and reviewers, but I think the situation is similar as with > > let's say x86_64 not too long ago; there were similar objections and > > concerns but I think eventually things worked out pretty well. > > except the onus of explaining what was broken was not on the packager. AFAIK, FE's mantra is still "upstream" So if some software doesn't support IPv6, I fail to see why it should become a burden to the packager. Just file a bug report upstream. Of course, if upstream does provide IPv6 support then I agree the FE package should have that feature enabled. Now if dwmw2 wants to force all Core packages to support IPv6, that's fine with me. But I don't think mandating it for FE packages is right, nor implying that FE is a dumping ground simply because it doesn't mandate enough features. We want working, maintained, secure packages, but we don't necessarily want creeping featuritism... Christian
