Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:07:28 -0600 From: Anti <fearow@attbi.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports using SSL & ipv6 by default (was: Re: ports/47257: [update port] irc/ezbounce) Message-ID: <20030120110728.15461419.fearow@attbi.com> In-Reply-To: <20030120164157.GC9751@absolutbsd.org> References: <200301201501.h0KF18Ko079987@coyote.dnsalias.net> <20030120171017.013346b9.corecode@corecode.ath.cx> <20030120164157.GC9751@absolutbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 10:41:57 -0600 Pete Fritchman <petef@absolutbsd.org> wrote: > ++ 20/01/03 17:10 +0100 - Simon 'corecode' Schubert: > | how about defaulting to SSL? this is a generic question, not only > | specific to this port. i'd vote for default-ssl and default-ipv6 because > | both are well supported in the base system. > | porters, portmgr, comments? > > I like it, I don't see why not (since, like you said, SSL and ipv6 are > both in the base system). If people don't want them, they can always > just add the appropriate WITHOUT_* knobs to make.conf. how many people actually use ipv6? you really think it's enough to justify defaulting? why bloat things unnecessarily? 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?20030120110728.15461419.fearow>