David Lamparter <[email protected]> writes: >> That is an interesting proposal, but I think this one needs a bit more >> thought. > > I would've appreciated these comments 5 months ago when Paul posted his > "require IPv6 API built-time support" patches... that should really > have been ample time to voice concerns.
I didn't see it then, and just now I thought you said this patch was new on the list. I don't see that there's a within-days rush now. All I meant was to discuss it explicitly vs it being inside one of a largish group of patches. > The matter at hand is simply that --disable-ipv6 in the build has > repeatedly been broken before without anyone noticing, and making it > work requires ugly #ifdef blocks. And all that is to support the case > of a *libc* without IPv6 support (symbols & structs). Runtime / Kernel > no-IPv6 is a different story. Yes, i understand that. > If disabling inet6 on NetBSD builds a libc without IPv6 support, thus > causing Quagga to fail build with IPv6 enabled, I believe the best > solution would be to disallow building Quagga on NetBSD systems without > inet6. I was talking about pkgsrc vs base. The inet6 option is usually intended to be about not trying to *use* v6. People end up with broken v6 functionality (due to provider issues) and lose, and want to tell programs not to use v6. There is no know to build the base system without IPv6 (headers, libc). One can disable INET6 (or INET, for that matter) in the kernel, but then the calls just return errors. I was asking more to see if there is something we are overlooking. I expect there will be results to my query to [email protected] (including possibly no answers) within a couple of days.
pgp2KANjZ7KtN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
