Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 11:33:42 +0900 From: itojun@iijlab.net To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) Cc: sumikawa@ebina.hitachi.co.jp, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPv6-enable ports Message-ID: <17129.947298822@coconut.itojun.org> In-Reply-To: asami's message of 07 Jan 2000 17:57:58 PST. <vqc7lhlfhp5.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> * Almost of applications work fine, but downwards compatibility is
> * depends on each implementations in general.
>For those that work for both v4 and v6, I think you should just go
>ahead and enable IPv6 by default. (I'm assuming the patches are not
>*that* big.) I don't want your jobs to be any harder than it already
>is.
>For those that only work for one, I suggest you make v4 the default
>and add a "slave" port that sets the v6 option on. Something like
>this:
>ports/ftp/wu-ftpd: normal port, with USE_INET6 check you suggested
>ports/ftp/wu-ftpd+ipv6: slave port with only the Makefile
>===
>USE_INET6= yes
>MASTERDIR= ${.CURDIR}/../wu-ftpd
>.include "${MASTERDIR}/Makefile"
>===
Yes, the plan looks fine.
In most cases ports falls into the former category.
I know of very few examples for the latter.
I give you one example: apache. Though apache6 works for both IPv4/v6,
we may need to have apache and apache6 separately, because:
- apache IPv6 patch needs to change internal C structure definition,
which *may* break 3rd party modules (I've never seen breakage though)
- there are many ports that depends on (normal) apache
- and apache is very famous and breakage is not allowed :-)
itojun
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17129.947298822>