On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 05:40:55PM +0200, Lars Liedtke wrote: > > Am 10.10.19 um 17:17 schrieb LuKreme: > > On Oct 9, 2019, at 00:15, Baptiste Daroussin <b...@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> I agree I don't see the reason why we should keep that ipv6 option. When > >> off > >> this option does not bring much value to the users as the code for apps to > >> support ipv6 mostly reside in the libc. Actually that was my intent in > >> 2012 to > >> first turn it on by default everywhere and then drop the option entirely. > > My isp does not support ipv6, so my services are not set to use it. I did > > have to specifically disable it in configuration for something, I forget > > what, but I have never felt the need to disable it in builds. > > > Why not just make building in IPv6 support the default, and introduce a > flag if someone really needs or wants to build without that support? > > Best regards > Which is the current situation ;)
Except the ipv6 options is inconsistently spread accross the ports, most of the ports do not even support building without ipv6 etc. Which is why came the question about why not removing that option totally, because the current situation is clearly inconsistent. Best regards, Bapt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
