Paul Wouters wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, W.C.A. Wijngaards wrote: > > >>However I am now facing the question: is upstream willing to fully > >>integrate this change or should I just drop it into FreeBSD base? > >>I’d be happy to work with you guys on this. Just let me know. > > > >Yes, we would be happy to integrate this. > > >Is NAT64 considered this important? We would be happy to incorporate > >the patch if this is considered useful to many users. > > I do think this will become more important over time. I support > inclusion of the code, compiled in but disabled per default. > > I have pondered in the past whether or not to patch it into the fedora > or rhel version of unbound. The only reason I did not was because it > was an external patch and would require a lot of maintanance. I was > hoping upstream would merge it in themselves.
+1 I've gotten several requests to add this patch to the Debian unbound package, but haven't done so for similar reasons. -- Robert Edmonds [email protected] _______________________________________________ Unbound-users mailing list [email protected] http://unbound.nlnetlabs.nl/mailman/listinfo/unbound-users
