On 2016/05/18 14:01, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > Stuart Henderson <[email protected]> writes: > > > Removing the sysctl should be very pretty safe as far as ports goes (I > > did wonder if thing s might read the sysctl and change behaviour but it > > seems that's not the case). Looks like only nsh will break from doing > > that and it's easily fixed. > > I fear that this is only creating a source of make-work for porters. > > - What will happen if we remove the sysctl? > Some external software will not compile.
djm is talking about removing the IPV6CTL_V6ONLY sysctl, not the ioctl. The sysctl isn't a problem, it will be a tiny change in one OpenBSD-specific port and I'm pretty sure not more than that. > - What will happen next? > Add #ifdefs around each unguarded use of IPV6_V6ONLY in the ports > tree. Submit that upstream. > > - What is the gain? > None, even if the patch gets pushed upstream. Yes, the ioctl has to stay for exactly the reasons you give. These are all over the tree. It's not 10000 ports, but pretty much *everything* that talks v6 and listens on dual sockets apart from maybe some niche BSD-centric things. These programs won't run on Linux without it. (They will run on FreeBSD though).
