Date: 07 Jan 2000 23:19:26 -0800 From: asami@FreeBSD.ORG (Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami) To: itojun@iijlab.net Cc: sumikawa@ebina.hitachi.co.jp, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG, committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPv6-enable ports Message-ID: <vqcaemhdo8x.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> In-Reply-To: itojun@iijlab.net's message of "Sat, 08 Jan 2000 11:33:42 %2B0900" References: <17129.947298822@coconut.itojun.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* From: itojun@iijlab.net * 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). * 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 :-) Don't tell me you need apache13+ipv6 and apache13-modssl+ipv6 and .... ;) Satoshi 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?vqcaemhdo8x.fsf>