Andreas Barth <a...@not.so.argh.org> writes: > I would however welcome to have some bugfixing campaign (release goals > for anyone?) which gets rid of the old interfaces in our code base. We > should also think if we want to get the default changed on kbsd - > basically kbsd is the new kid, so I don't think it warrants that we do > strange stuff on Debian. Also, perhaps just an appropriate warning for > ksbd in the release notes might be enough (at least for squeeze).
Having a different default on BSD than on other platforms strikes me as asking for trouble (in particular, asking for obscure portability issues to BSD systems that most developers don't test on). > Having said this, I would like to call for an vote with the options > A set net.ipv6.bindv6only to 0 > B set net.ipv6.bindv6only to 1 > C further discussion > unless someone from the tech ctte sees the need for further > discussions (or options) right now. There's also the meta-question of whether we need to make a decision at all. Marco's last message on this topic to debian-devel said basically that he thinks the default should be set back to 0, so possibly this is happening without our involvement? -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
