From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Oct 11 12:43:54 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C3914D7A4 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:43:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=jdQc=YE=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46qSLd0qLmz4VRR for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:43:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=jdQc=YE=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563D528474; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:43:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-62-24-92-232.net.upcbroadband.cz [62.24.92.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5720128423; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:43:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary? To: LuKreme , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <566f28fc-8c6b-0d43-8455-0524e1965896@punkt.de> From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:43:45 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0 SeaMonkey/2.49.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46qSLd0qLmz4VRR X-Spamd-Bar: +++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of SRS0=jdQc=YE=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz has no SPF policy when checking 94.124.105.4) smtp.mailfrom=SRS0=jdQc=YE=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz X-Spamd-Result: default: False [5.10 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.91)[ip: (0.45), ipnet: 94.124.104.0/21(0.23), asn: 42000(3.78), country: CZ(0.09)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[quip.cz]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.99)[0.990,0]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[4.105.124.94.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[0.999,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=jdQc=YE=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42000, ipnet:94.124.104.0/21, country:CZ]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[000.fbsd@quip.cz, SRS0=jdQc=YE=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 12:43:54 -0000 LuKreme wrote on 2019/10/11 00:23: > On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:01, Lars Liedtke wrote: >> >> Why not just make building in IPv6 support the default, and introduce a >> flag if someone really needs or wants to build without that support? > > Because it adds to the load of testing. If you really need it, build from source. Building official packages with IPv6 is OK. Removing existing options from ports and saying "build from source" is ... stupid. Miroslav Lachman