Hi, * Adam Borowski ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060809 12:19]: > 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?
That's a good question. > 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) Well, what I would do is to: 1. speak with the maintainer; 2. if that fails, check if the maintainer is still active (see section about MIA maintainers in the developers reference); 3. if the maintainer is no longer active, let the QA group orphan the package, adopt it and fix it; 3a. if this takes too long, put a minimal-invasive new upstream version into experimental and encourage people to use it (via planet, ...). Of course, this are only some ideas from the top of my head; there might be a more appropriate way to deal with the issues in a case. BTW, IMHO there is never an issue with putting patches to the BTS, even if they're intended for future releases (as long as they work). Why not? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]