From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Thu Oct 10 22:46:10 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285691341F1 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 22:46:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.org) Received: from mambo.koitsu.org (mambo.koitsu.org [172.81.177.231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46q5m06tWgz4fwx for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 22:46:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jdc@koitsu.org) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 15:46:05 -0700 From: Jeremy Chadwick To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] Re: Is IPV6 option still necessary? Message-ID: <20191010224605.GA86932@koitsu.org> References: <20191010031339.GA69497@icarus.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191010031339.GA69497@icarus.home.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46q5m06tWgz4fwx X-Spamd-Bar: + X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.64 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:172.81.177.231]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.38)[-0.381,0]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.03)[0.033,0]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[koitsu.org,quarantine]; IP_SCORE(1.79)[ip: (4.96), ipnet: 172.81.176.0/21(2.48), asn: 174(1.58), country: US(-0.05)]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:174, ipnet:172.81.176.0/21, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 22:46:10 -0000 On Wed, Oct 09, 2019 at 08:13:39PM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > Now we can get back on the ipv6 option. > > > > so if we want to proceed further in removing the option to build with or without > > ipv6 for the ports side. Please speak up in reply to this email, if you are > > building without ipv6, why are you doing so, what are the real benefit for it. > > How bad it will impact you if we do remove that option? > > Whenever I use ports over FreeBSD-provided packages (or to use ports to > build my own packages), I often disable IPV6 support. The lengthy > response below should explain why. > {brevity snip} This was sent to the wrong mailing list; was intended for -ports. Sorry for the noise. -- | Jeremy Chadwick jdc@koitsu.org | | UNIX Systems Administrator PGP 0x2A389531 | | Making life hard for others since 1977. |