From nobody Sun Sep 29 20:02:58 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-current@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4XGw9t37lnz5X7Zk for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 20:03:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net [65.75.216.6]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4XGw9s6mmQz4N9M for ; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 20:03:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id 48TK2x7x093386; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 13:02:59 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd-rwg@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id 48TK2wWC093385; Sun, 29 Sep 2024 13:02:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsd-rwg) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <202409292002.48TK2wWC093385@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: Is INET6 a required option these days? (kernel build failure) In-Reply-To: To: void Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 13:02:58 -0700 (PDT) CC: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL121h (25)] List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-current List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:10494, ipnet:65.75.216.0/23, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4XGw9s6mmQz4N9M X-Spamd-Bar: ---- > On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 02:13:01PM +0000, Gary Jennejohn wrote: > > >I personally have been using a customized kernel configuration file for > >25 years or more and I have no intention of changing it. > > > >Just because INET6 shows up in all the boilerplate config files doesn't > >change the fact that INET6 is still an option. > > I've always thought inet6 stuff was needed by some internal processes > even if not explicitly enabled. i tried ages ago disabling it all and various > things broke inexplicably, even though I wasn't using it and it wasn't > allowed at the firewall. So, it's like an option, from what I can gather, > but a compulsory one ;) > > I think I'd consider disabling it again if i were making something like > nanobsd. Both INET and INET6 are optional, should always be optional, and breaking that IMHO would be another major flaw in FreeBSD. Yes, occasionally they expereince short term breakage, usually trivilial to fix with a few proper #ifdef's that someone didn't understand they needed. NOT all things need to be network connected! -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org