From owner-freebsd-ports  Sat Jan  8  5:58:17 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from coconut.itojun.org (coconut.itojun.org [210.160.95.97])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8FFB114E97; Sat,  8 Jan 2000 05:58:12 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from itojun@itojun.org)
Received: from kiwi.itojun.org (localhost.itojun.org [127.0.0.1])
	by coconut.itojun.org (8.9.3+3.2W/3.7W) with ESMTP id WAA23771;
	Sat, 8 Jan 2000 22:58:11 +0900 (JST)
To: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami)
Cc: sumikawa@ebina.hitachi.co.jp, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG,
	committers@FreeBSD.ORG
In-reply-to: asami's message of 07 Jan 2000 23:19:26 PST.
      <vqcaemhdo8x.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
X-Template-Reply-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-Template-Return-Receipt-To: itojun@itojun.org
X-PGP-Fingerprint: F8 24 B4 2C 8C 98 57 FD  90 5F B4 60 79 54 16 E2
Subject: Re: IPv6-enable ports
From: itojun@iijlab.net
Date: Sat, 08 Jan 2000 22:58:11 +0900
Message-ID: <23769.947339891@coconut.itojun.org>
Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org


> * 	Yes, the plan looks fine.
> * 
> * 	In most cases ports falls into the former category.
> * 	I know of very few examples for the latter.
>That's good.  You can take this as my "ok" to go ahead and start
>fixing the ports (after asking the maintainers, of course).

	Do you think you need USE_INET6 (or something like this), to provide
	fallback to IPv4-only port?  or can we just make them IPv6 ready
	without any switches?

	Another note: sometimes it may become tricky to use ports-current on
	systems before IPv6 merge, if we don't have USE_INET6.
	If IPv6-ready packages use autoconf properly, there should be no issue.

itojun


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message