From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 28 12:32:59 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A63106568F for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:32:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326ED8FC21 for ; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:32:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [84.49.246.2]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F5076D41C; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:32:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id F024A844C4; Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:32:57 +0200 (CEST) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Andriy Gapon References: <86vdj34a4g.fsf@ds4.des.no> <4AC0A3C1.9070202@icyb.net.ua> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:32:57 +0200 In-Reply-To: <4AC0A3C1.9070202@icyb.net.ua> (Andriy Gapon's message of "Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:53:37 +0300") Message-ID: <86my4f45c6.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.95 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Alexander Best , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ipv6 related warnings X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:32:59 -0000 Andriy Gapon writes: > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav writes: > > No, you can build a *kernel* without IPv6, just not userland. Parts > > of userland will respect WITHOUT_INET6, others won't, and others yet > > will build but not run correctly. > So shouldn't those disrespecting parts of userland be fixed? Why? In most (userland) cases, it takes more work to write code that supports IPv4 but not IPv6 than to write code that supports both. > Besides, returning to the original post, those messages weren't there > just a few days ago, this is a new addition. ...if by "just a few days" you mean "two weeks". If this really is "a new addition", it dates back to one of hrs@'s commits on 2009-09-13. However, the most likely cause of the OP's problem is incorrect use of mergemaster. If he did indeed run "mergemaster -p" and "mergemaster -i", but nothing more, his /etc is completely out of sync. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no