-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 15/07/2011 09:02 πμ, Joshua Saddler wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 19:05:42 +0300 > Markos Chandras <[email protected]> wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA512 > >> # Markos Chandras <[email protected]> (10 Jul 2011) >> # Dead upstream. Bugs #353788 and #348232 >> # Alternatives: >> # net-misc/dibbler >> # net-misc/dhcp[ipv6] >> # Masked for removal in 30 days >> net-misc/dhcpv6 > > Not cool. For a few reasons: > > 1. I had to delete significant sections of the ipv6 guide tonight, > since there's no documentation for these alternatives. Now there's > nothing on running an ipv6 dhcp server or client.
Which documentation are you referring to? > > 2. There are no more stable dhcp/ipv6 packages in the tree. This > sucks, both for users that run stable, and for the documentation, > since we're only supposed to cover stable packages. dhcpv6 has no stable keywords > > - net-misc/dhcp doesn't get +ipv6 unless you emerge the ~arch version > 4.x, and even then, there is NO documentation included on how to use > it with ipv6. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374445 > > - net-misc/dibbler only has ~arch and hardmasked versions available. > True. I was to request stabilization as well. > Can anyone lend the GDP a hand and get us a couple of paragraphs on > how to configure a dhcp/ipv6 server and client, similar to what we > had in the guide? Ideally with a stable package, or maybe the > maintainers could stabilize their ~arch alternatives. > > I hate to use Markos' Last Rites email as a jumping off point, but > it's these kinds of removals, the kind that shaft our users and > documentation maintainers, that make me throw up my hands in > frustration and take another step toward retirement. Markos, I'm not > singling you out; this has been going on for a long time now, with > many, many current and former developers: package maintainers > almost *never* look at the docs or contact the GDP when going through > package removals. I would like this to change. :) I can keep this package in the tree long enough until there is an alternative documentation available. My point is not to frustrate users but to "force" them migrate to better alternatives. Moreover, remember that the dhcpv6 upstream is dead and dhcp[ipv6] is the official alternative. I don't quite see the point in supporting dhcpv6 anymore. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJOH/NhAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCrrAP/1h0yqedCmL7X0oWI3aIQ+tE bf5HQvnEaj+Fl4GfTYovpa2r6rHNpbVPtzEKYbb6vPpB2/RW54KErEp4fpyYE2K3 WdZVVHfQSeLcLaD+T2CCNSB/bglLdLg8kIKvN18xzM/5s2gfhXR7SBL9CQC7Mw3z +fY6T42yrWkRXGzwNRJ7bm6UKZftIU2PJDymIJhC3H0BZC8ExCFB2ddQmL07BHlU /bvJZ/TWpp5xkvKVyvXdN51wS6POQR20e/EzjK+BmvpiCfhCGi3+/lKVt462EP+f QJM/lvQpz0Zth7Qt/rxbfsSC2KsRup21Ni8yIe+GHH6zPUajo4lgcpHDSmkwI3NI bU5KcDRDHrtC5zaELgGpISWsfQUTVrQWJm55TFvM3Imoh2vIFruVwYhiLCb0gz2w 3IrE7Ch4Ct+XKglp0/2HvoJeK38faEO7G4cPJM55RiPjrHlpva/4ZCHLLW5rjLzc rI4PBAoa2N/RczBy6RIPy59zJjT+8uq1nbrhjmzNKRw6ljGbGiQdoyPGxGiQZqRV DQaJ2xj0ltT1Dc87kA/OCLA+jeDLGmazGOugagWkJpYgA6f0vukGl7njCyi04nuv mHRFYSllbXoHiZwLkd/Y5lKRw0YQOuXGpiOlFnuhpk7ijAe0dZAZqhzpSziy42Ga jzGEKHAiVOB5fCpSgLht =6VVs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
