On Saturday 15 May 2010 12:09:47 David Weinehall wrote:
Last time I checked, /usr/bin is also part of default $PATH...
Tricky, it becomes part of it later, not from the beginning.
But that wasn't the point. The point was that if an admin changes something to
a non-standard behavior, then has to
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 06:39:46PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Salvo Tomaselli
| On Thursday 13 May 2010 17:54:04 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
| application that didn't handle IFS or PATH being different from its
|
What if it is just installed from the tarball?
Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
Proprietary, granted, but why buggy? bindv6only=0 is assumed by both
POSIX and RFC 3493.
--jch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
On Thursday 13 May 2010 15:33:42 Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
Proprietary, granted, but why buggy? bindv6only=0 is assumed by both
POSIX and RFC 3493.
I agree with you, but in this mailing list apparently the word standard
might mean many many things.
You might say standard meaning i will go to
]] Juliusz Chroboczek
| What if it is just installed from the tarball?
|
| Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
|
| Proprietary, granted, but why buggy?
Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
application that didn't handle IFS or PATH
On Thursday 13 May 2010 17:54:04 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
application that didn't handle IFS or PATH being different from its
default value would be buggy.
Do you know what happens if you move /bin/mkdir to /usr/bin/mkdir?
SSH
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
]] Juliusz Chroboczek
| What if it is just installed from the tarball?
|
| Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
|
| Proprietary, granted, but why buggy?
Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
application
| bindv6only=0 is assumed by both POSIX and RFC 3493.
As the default value, yes. Not as the only possible value.
Please stop repeating this legend, it is simply not true.
POSIX 2008, Volume 2, Section 2.10.20 is extremely clear that AF_INET6
sockets can be used for IPv4:
Applications
]] Salvo Tomaselli
| On Thursday 13 May 2010 17:54:04 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
| application that didn't handle IFS or PATH being different from its
| default value would be buggy.
|
| Do you know what happens if you move
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:39:46 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
Why is this relevant? If you remove a POSIX-defined utility from $PATH,
your system is no longer POSIX-compliant, not to mention a fully-working
Debian system.
Strange that now being POSIX-compliant is important but it isn't when we talk
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 05:54:04PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
]] Juliusz Chroboczek
Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
application that didn't handle IFS or PATH being different from its
default value would be buggy. If it absolutely needs a given value,
]] Salvo Tomaselli
| And handling bindv6only is absolutely trivial.
|
| Right, but there are many others sysctl options, why should the apps
| deal with this particular one and not with the others?
They should.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends
On Saturday 08 May 2010 20:33:57 Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
It could add a file in /etc/sysctl.d/ to override the current
/etc/sysctl.d/bindv6only.conf setting, and disable
net.ipv6.bindv6only = 1 when sun-java6 is installed. :)
Wouldn't that introduce some strange heisenbug related to which
On May 05, Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote:
the bugs in applications. I would find very strange if we release sqeeze
with a broken sun's java (even if it is non-free) and no good replacement.
Me too, but I still hope that it could be fixed.
Maybe the maintainer could provide some of
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 05, Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote:
the bugs in applications. I would find very strange if we release sqeeze
with a broken sun's java (even if it is non-free) and no good replacement.
Me too, but I still hope that it could be fixed.
Maybe the maintainer
[Niels Thykier]
I do not think the maintainers can do anything about sun-java6 other
than ask users to modify the netbase config file. To the best of my
knowledge there is no source code available for sun-java6.
It could add a file in /etc/sysctl.d/ to override the current
On 08/05/2010 20:33, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
[Niels Thykier]
I do not think the maintainers can do anything about sun-java6 other
than ask users to modify the netbase config file. To the best of my
knowledge there is no source code available for sun-java6.
It could add a file in
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:16:10AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
What if it is just installed from the tarball?
Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
Le samedi 08 mai 2010 à 19:25 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
On May 05, Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote:
the bugs in applications. I would find very strange if we release sqeeze
with a broken sun's java (even if it is non-free) and no good replacement.
Me too, but I still hope
Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr writes:
And I see in these threads lots of things broken (including sun java that
it used/required for lots of software not necessarily packaged in Debian)
and no visible gains for users.
I do not understand what is the purpose to say we will wait before
On 09/05/2010 01:45, Clint Adams wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:16:10AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
What if it is just installed from the tarball?
Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
Which should not prevent this person from running it, especially when
all
On 2010-05-04, Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote:
On 27/04/2010 13:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 27, Simon Huggins hug...@earth.li wrote:
Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
breaks that package or are you not bothered about breaking non-free
On 05/05/2010 09:18, Philipp Kern wrote:
On 2010-05-04, Vincent Danjean vdanjean...@free.fr wrote:
On 27/04/2010 13:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 27, Simon Huggins hug...@earth.li wrote:
Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
breaks that package or are you
On 27/04/2010 13:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 27, Simon Huggins hug...@earth.li wrote:
Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
breaks that package or are you not bothered about breaking non-free
software?
Nobody bothered to register this in the BTS, I did
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:40:53PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 27, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
reasonable commenter), and now you're saying that Julien Cristau is the
peanut gallery.
No, I am not.
But you're breaking peoples' systems *now*. And breaking systems
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 07:46:18PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 18:59:16 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I didn't look at the source, but if it's already using
getaddrinfo() and going over all the addresses it returned,
I don't see why it should be broken with either
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 18:33:58 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
So the question is then if you care about kernels without ipv6
support. If getaddrinfo() returns an ipv6 address and you
don't go over the list, you have a problem.
gdm first calls getaddrinfo() with hints.ai_family == AF_INET6. If
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
On Apr 27, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
But you're breaking peoples' systems *now*. And breaking systems
Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.
Based on this data I believe that the
On 27/04/2010 17:18, Peter Samuelson wrote:
[Marco d'Itri]
Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.
Well, there is #572279 against lighttpd. It's not directly a bug with
bindv6only, but it is caused by the fix for bindv6only.
It also breaks many java applications
* Julien Cristau:
+#if defined(ENABLE_IPV6) defined(IPV6_V6ONLY)
+ if (ai-ai_family == AF_INET6) {
+ int zero = 0;
+ if (setsockopt(sock, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, zero,
sizeof(zero)) 0)
+ g_warning(setsockopt(IPV6_V6ONLY): %s,
If POSIX-compliant apps may only work with one setting then the standard would
say only this setting is compliant with POSIX. Since it does not,
Yes it does. Section 2.10.20, see the paragraph titled Compatibility
with IPv4.
You might argue that having this in the POSIX standard is a mistake,
The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
- nobody cares about the consensus in the peanut gallery
I am not quite sure what to do with this sentence.
You have single-handedly broken peoples' systems, with no advance
warning. When people have complained, you have
Florian Weimer, le Tue 27 Apr 2010 09:15:12 +0200, a écrit :
* Julien Cristau:
+#if defined(ENABLE_IPV6) defined(IPV6_V6ONLY)
+ if (ai-ai_family == AF_INET6) {
+ int zero = 0;
+ if (setsockopt(sock, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, zero,
sizeof(zero)) 0)
+
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:46:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
- as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice
Not sure what you mean here.
Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
breaks that package or are you not bothered about breaking
On Apr 27, Simon Huggins hug...@earth.li wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:46:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
- as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice
Not sure what you mean here.
We have time until the freeze to determine the impact of this change.
Anyway, is
On Apr 27, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
reasonable commenter), and now you're saying that Julien Cristau is the
peanut gallery.
No, I am not.
But you're breaking peoples' systems *now*. And breaking systems
Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.
[Marco d'Itri]
Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.
Well, there is #572279 against lighttpd. It's not directly a bug with
bindv6only, but it is caused by the fix for bindv6only.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:54:53PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:30:14 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Good. Now if you or one of those who advocate this broken by default
behavior could provide patches for gdm3, this would be more productive.
Not that I advocate
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 18:59:16 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I didn't look at the source, but if it's already using
getaddrinfo() and going over all the addresses it returned,
I don't see why it should be broken with either value of
the option.
So I can only assume that it doesn't go over
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's
been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of
net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the
impression that people agree that the
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not
in testing) didn't manage that.
unless I've missed something, I'm under the impression that people
agree that the change was a mistake.
Not again...
What do you mean?
The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
the one that people don't want.
On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administrator,
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
the one that people don't want.
It's the one that I want.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe.
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:17:05 Clint Adams wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
the one that people don't want.
It's the one that I want.
You could still change it, right?
--
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 05:35:45PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
You could still change it, right?
So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software,
just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically
make Hudson less broken.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:46:17PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:42:04 Clint Adams wrote:
So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software,
just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically
make Hudson less broken.
You have a missconception of broken.
POSIX has a default value, the developers will read
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:35:00 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
560238 is blocked only by 579033, end of bug report mentions also wine,
which I've missed. Reports against other packages are already closed. Am
I missing something else?
Read this mailing list, some packages were mentioned.
My point was,
On Mon Apr 26 18:02, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
You have a missconception of broken.
POSIX has a default value, the developers will read the POSIX documentation
and tell you to screw you if you do a bugreport saying that if you
voluntarily
make your system non-compliant then their software
Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
the one that people don't want.
It's the one that I want.
Good. Now if you or one of those
On Monday 26 April 2010 18:30:29 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Default does not mean only permittable. If POSIX allows it to be set to
either value, then no matter what the _default_ is, not coping with either
is a bug.
Default: a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence
of
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:30:14 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
the one that people don't
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:54:53 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:30:14 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
The apparent consensus is
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 18:30:29 Matthew Johnson wrote:
Default does not mean only permittable. If POSIX allows it to be
set to either value, then no matter what the _default_ is, not
coping with either is a bug.
Default: a selection
On Monday 26 April 2010 20:22:07 Don Armstrong wrote:
There's no conflict here. The definition quoted says nothing about
default meaning only permittable, exactly as Matthew claims above.
If the software doesn't work properly when either of the permissible
values is set when it is possible
On Apr 26, Juliusz Chroboczek j...@pps.jussieu.fr wrote:
The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
Because:
- nobody cares about the consensus in the peanut gallery
- as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice
This is of course nonsense.
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 20:22:07 Don Armstrong wrote:
If the software doesn't work properly when either of the permissible
values is set when it is possible for the software to handle either
value correctly, the software is buggy. It may not be a
On Monday 26 April 2010 21:59:08 Don Armstrong wrote:
It doesn't matter who sets it. If the program doesn't work properly
with either setting, and it's possible for it to work properly with
either setting by patching the code, it's a bug that should be fixed.
It matters because in my view, the
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 21:59:08 Don Armstrong wrote:
It doesn't matter who sets it. If the program doesn't work properly
with either setting, and it's possible for it to work properly with
either setting by patching the code, it's a bug that
On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code
is buggy.
There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the
default when it
On Mon Apr 26 23:21, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code
is buggy.
There's no reason for the code to rely
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 23:50 +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Mon Apr 26 23:21, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed,
I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's
been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of
net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the
impression that people agree that the change was a mistake.
May I therefore most
63 matches
Mail list logo
