From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org  Fri Oct 11 13:09:22 2019
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
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 C014814E63C
 for <freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>;
 Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:09:22 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from kremels@kreme.com)
Received: from mail.covisp.net (mail.covisp.net [65.121.55.42])
 (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 46qSw15QmWz4X58
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:09:21 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from kremels@kreme.com)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: LuKreme <kremels@kreme.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 07:09:19 -0600
Subject: Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary?
Message-Id: <2E9007CC-E0C3-4E50-A21C-96658AEC5F91@kreme.com>
References: <cf57a0e4-25af-d44e-bfbf-b02e1a4a8347@quip.cz>
In-Reply-To: <cf57a0e4-25af-d44e-bfbf-b02e1a4a8347@quip.cz>
To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (17A860)
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46qSw15QmWz4X58
X-Spamd-Bar: /
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none;
 spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of kremels@kreme.com designates 65.121.55.42
 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=kremels@kreme.com
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.42 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
 NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.994,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
 R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; MISSING_MIME_VERSION(2.00)[];
 MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
 TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1];
 NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.97)[-0.972,0]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[kreme.com];
 TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[];
 IP_SCORE(-0.22)[ip: (-0.76), ipnet: 65.112.0.0/12(-0.21), asn: 209(-0.06),
 country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0];
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[42.55.121.65.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.1];
 R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:209, ipnet:65.112.0.0/12, country:US];
 MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 13:09:22 -0000

On Oct 11, 2019, at 06:44, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> wrote:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFLuKreme wrote on 2019/10/11 00:23:
>> On Oct 10, 2019, at 10:01, Lars Liedtke <liedtke@punkt.de> 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.

How many ports do you maintain?

Are you willing to test and patch ports for removing ipv6 on each new versio=
n?