On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 11:45:46PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > Full IPv6 support > ================= > > There has been some confusion about the Etch release goal about IPv6. Our > understanding of that release goal is that all network applications should be > able to work with both IPv4 and IPv6. Also stateful packet filtering should > work for both protocols. Please consider all bugs tagged "ipv6" to be > upgraded to at least important - or even better, fix them.
How invasive ways are welcome/allowed? For example, I use pound (a reverse proxy/URL redirector/SSL wrapper). * unstable has 2.0 * I use 2.0.9 with my partial (listen-only) IPv6 * upstream just released 2.1 The maintainer seems to be MIA. I didn't unload my patches (IPv6, WebDAV) into the BTS yet as upstream kept saying they'll release "tomorrow" or "in three days from now" for a few months. The new stable upstream release got released on Saturday, but I've been sick so I didn't port my IPv6 patch to 2.1 yet; it should be done and tested soon, though. So, should I: a) make a backport to 2.0; or b) provide patches for the current upstream (2.1) only; or c) do a complete overhaul, including unrelated issues; giving the maintainer a tarball and svn (Of course, asking the maintainer again is the first thing to do) -- 1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor: // Never attribute to stupidity what can be // adequately explained by malice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]