Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 14:39:18 +0100 From: Dirk Froemberg <dirk@freebsd.org> To: Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@freebsd.org> Cc: itojun@iijlab.net, sumikawa@ebina.hitachi.co.jp, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv6-enable ports Message-ID: <20000108143917.A76402@physik.TU-Berlin.DE> In-Reply-To: <vqcaemhdo8x.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from asami@freebsd.org on Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:19:26PM -0800 References: <17129.947298822@coconut.itojun.org> <vqcaemhdo8x.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 07, 2000 at 11:19:26PM -0800, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote: > * From: itojun@iijlab.net > > * Yes, the plan looks fine. > * > * In most cases ports falls into the former category. > * I know of very few examples for the latter. > > That's good. You can take this as my "ok" to go ahead and start > fixing the ports (after asking the maintainers, of course). > > * I give you one example: apache. Though apache6 works for both IPv4/v6, > * we may need to have apache and apache6 separately, because: > * - apache IPv6 patch needs to change internal C structure definition, > * which *may* break 3rd party modules (I've never seen breakage though) > * - there are many ports that depends on (normal) apache > * - and apache is very famous and breakage is not allowed :-) > > Don't tell me you need apache13+ipv6 and apache13-modssl+ipv6 and .... ;) Oh no, please not! ;-) At the moment there is a discussion how to minimize the number of apache* ports. Perhaps we come to a result this time. We should wait and see if this is the case before dealing with apache-*-ipv6... -- Dirk Froemberg FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000108143917.A76402>