Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:38:17 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@FreeBSD.org>, "Sergey A. Osokin" <osa@FreeBSD.org>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r439421 - in head/www/nginx: . files Message-ID: <1493314697.66427.8.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <1fb15b0d-db5c-3707-6821-50cc4f57cb8e@FreeBSD.org> References: <201704252318.v3PNI9Io032993@repo.freebsd.org> <b836e2e3-8920-538a-a87e-f7a931f1a85f@FreeBSD.org> <20170426165333.GC18747@FreeBSD.org> <1426aa14-e30f-bb33-6e76-5fdfdd222e74@FreeBSD.org> <20170427164627.GE18747@FreeBSD.org> <1493312147.66427.6.camel@freebsd.org> <1fb15b0d-db5c-3707-6821-50cc4f57cb8e@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 18:09 +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote: > On 27/04/17 17:55, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 16:46 +0000, Sergey A. Osokin wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:24:55AM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 26/04/2017 ?? 18:53, Sergey A. Osokin a ??crit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:18:44PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Le 26/04/2017 ?? 01:18, Sergey A. Osokin a ??crit : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Author: osa > > > > > > > Date: Tue Apr 25 23:18:09 2017 > > > > > > > New Revision: 439421 > > > > > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/439421 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Log: > > > > > > > Upgrade from 1.10.3 to 1.12.0. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ChangeLog: http://nginx.org/en/CHANGES-1.12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remove IPV6 knob, IPv6 now compiled-in automatically if > > > > > > > support is found. > > > > > > This still feels like a very bad idea. > > > > > Could you please explain what exactly is very bad here? > > > > We had that talk like a week or two ago. It means that if the > > > > package > > > > builder support IPv6 it will not work on a box without it, and > > > > if > > > > the > > > > package builder does not support IPv6, a box with IPv6 will not > > > > be > > > > able > > > > to use nginx with IPv6. > > > Then you can go ahead and enable IPv6 on the package builder like > > > you > > > did the > > > same for the third-party moz_zip module. > > > > > > INET6 in FreeBSD's GENERIC kernel for years, I see no reason why > > > shouldn't use it. > > > > > Why do you continue to argue with multiple people who've expressed > > a > > real-world need for this utterly trivial request to leave the IPV6 > > knob > > in place? > > > > In the real world I have builder machines which DO have IPv6 > > enabled, > > which must be able to create packages that run on machines that do > > NOT > > have IPv6 enabled. > Despite of the fact that I hate the most of IPv6 implementations, I > really *hate* when somebody tries to complicate it even more. It is > 2017 > year so far and almost 20 years since IPv6 has been formally > introduced. > Why do we still support IPv6 less configurations anywhere? Perhaps, > we > should go further and start support IPv4 less configurations (just > IPX > like in 90s) or TCP less configurations? These things should just > die. > Come on, 20 years is enough time frame to state that IPv6 must be > supported by any sane OS. I'd vote to remove this legacy knob from > the > ports completely (and that will simplify pkg job as well). Astounding: Everyone has to conform to your views to use this port. Do you maintain the port for users, or just as a vehicle to further your religion about internet protocols? -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1493314697.66427.8.camel>