Russ Allbery dixit: >>> architectures which are expected to be part of Debian. Debian has >>> needed to adapt to BSD behavior, non-standard or not, since the project >>> decided to include the kfreebsd architectures. That's part of porting. > >> What is wrong with porting kfreebsd behaivour instead? > >I don't know. What do the BSD porters think about it?
I'd rather say it's not exactly non-standard behaviour but "the other one" (dual-stack vs doble-stack). From an implementor's PoV: what does IPv6 have to do with IPv4 and why should it listen there too? From a security PoV, the doble-stack setup is preferable (although I perso- nally would like to see it configurable). Maybe like this: kfreebsd-* will be relatively buggy in squeeze anyway, so put it back to 0 for squeeze but not unstable or squeeze+1 and fix the apps in the meantime. I fixed one (that got removed later tho…), so it's possible. bye, //mirabilos -- FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much *much* more bare bones. But it turns out it beats the living hell out of ksh93 in that respect. I'd even consider it for my daily use if I hadn't wasted half my life on my zsh setup. :-) -- Frank Terbeck in #!/bin/mksh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1004132024070.2...@herc.mirbsd.org
