On Thu, 01 Jul 2010, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >> With bindv6only=0, a v6 socket bound to :: will not accept v4
> >> connections, full stop. With bindv6only=0, connecting a v6 socket to
> >> a v4-mapped address will not work, full stop.
>
> That's obviously a typo -- I meant bindv6only=1.
Then
>> With bindv6only=0, a v6 socket bound to :: will not accept v4
>> connections, full stop. With bindv6only=0, connecting a v6 socket to
>> a v4-mapped address will not work, full stop.
That's obviously a typo -- I meant bindv6only=1.
Juliusz
pgpEstR4god
(cc's dropped, sorry, I was in "kernel" ML netiquete mode).
On Wed, 30 Jun 2010, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:
> > one probably has to mess with /etc/gai.conf
> [...]
> > On a dual stack box and any application that does NOT work in ipv6only=1
> > mode, you likely have t
Why is it that suddenly everyone is an expert in double-stack programming?
Brian May:
>> For me, bindv6only=0 seems like an ugly hack designed to make existing
>> applications work without change.
Bindv6only=0 is a way to allow servers to be written to listen to just
one socket, which allows mak
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, Brian May wrote:
> On 14 June 2010 16:35, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> > leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> > is unwilling to fix.
>
> Is there software that still requires
On 14 June 2010 22:13, Adam Borowski wrote:
>> For me, bindv6only=0 seems like an ugly hack designed to make existing
>> applications work without change.
>
> "without change"? Except, you know, the whole conversion from gethostname()
> and friends to getaddrinfo()? V4-mapped addresses won't sho
OoO La nuit ayant déjà recouvert d'encre ce jour du mardi 15 juin 2010,
vers 23:18, George Danchev disait :
> they would be still inferior to those opening two separate sockets (which
> means more fine-grained control like listening on v4 or v6 or both, or
> establish means to threat them spec
Am 15.06.2010 23:18, schrieb George Danchev:
Jarek Kamiński writes:
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
I see only two ways of fixing proprietary Java (apart from fixing it
upstream or ignoring the problem):
* wrap java and java_vm binaries in some scripts setting LD_PRELOAD (in
Debi
Jarek Kamiński writes:
> Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> >> I see only two ways of fixing proprietary Java (apart from fixing it
> >> upstream or ignoring the problem):
> >> * wrap java and java_vm binaries in some scripts setting LD_PRELOAD (in
> >>
> >> Debian package)
> >>
> >>
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
>> I see only two ways of fixing proprietary Java (apart from fixing it
>> upstream or ignoring the problem):
>> * wrap java and java_vm binaries in some scripts setting LD_PRELOAD (in
>> Debian package)
>> or
>> * allow sun-java6-* packages to override
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
>> I see only two ways of fixing proprietary Java (apart from fixing it
>> upstream or ignoring the problem):
>> * wrap java and java_vm binaries in some scripts setting LD_PRELOAD (in
>> Debian package)
> This won't work in some cases. Some native progr
Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
Hi,
> It is not the case. The OpenJDK has some problems with font management,
> slower with Swing and a few other problems.
> However, I am not aware of software not working with the OpenJDK (ie
> requiring the proprietary Java).
ISTR OpenJDK and JDBC4 do not exactly wor
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> is unwilling to fix.
I think there are probably other proprietary applications that people just
haven't tried usin
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 08:45:58PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On 14 June 2010 16:35, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> > leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> > is unwilling to fix.
There's no bug, so t
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 01:25:11PM +0200, Jarek Kamiński wrote:
> Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> > I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> > leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> > is unwilling to fix.
> > Unless the ma
Le lundi 14 juin 2010 à 13:25 +0200, Jarek Kamiński a écrit :
> Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> > I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> > leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> > is unwilling to fix.
> > Unless the main
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> is unwilling to fix.
> Unless the maintainer believes that we can get a fixed version before
> the release the
Le lundi 14 juin 2010 à 20:45 +1000, Brian May a écrit :
> On 14 June 2010 16:35, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> > leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> > is unwilling to fix.
>
> Is there software
On 14 June 2010 16:35, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
> leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
> is unwilling to fix.
Is there software that still requires this proprietary Java
implementation? I hear open
On Jun 13, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> You are taking the wrong approach to things. We should see if it is
> still a major problem at freeze time, or if we have managed to fix all
> the buggy software before freeze.
I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
leaves us with the
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> 3) There are potential security bugs if an application black- or
> white-lists IPv4 addresses and someone uses an v6-mapped IPv4 address to
> connect. (Handwavy and, as far as I've seen, purely hypothetical.
I don't want to blow the discussion once aga
Paul Wise writes:
> How many times will this discussion will go round and round in
> circles? I'm getting dizzy.
I believe it will continue until someone finds the end of the circle.
Bjørn
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Tro
Paul Wise writes:
> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Michael Poole wrote:
>
>> The behavior with net.ipv6.bindv6only=0 is mandated by both POSIX and
>> the governing RFC. How can you call it a bug for software to expect
>> that behavior? The true bug is that Debian intentionally violates these
On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Michael Poole wrote:
> The behavior with net.ipv6.bindv6only=0 is mandated by both POSIX and
> the governing RFC. How can you call it a bug for software to expect
> that behavior? The true bug is that Debian intentionally violates these
> standards. If people d
Sune Vuorela writes:
> On 2010-06-13, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> It is difficult to understand why we should wait freeze time to change
>> anything. Some people (including me) may be afraid that the problem may
>> not be corrected because of the freeze. Moreover, in the meantime, some
>> applic
On Sunday 13 June 2010, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2010-06-13, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > It is difficult to understand why we should wait freeze time to change
> > anything. Some people (including me) may be afraid that the
problem may
> > not be corrected because of the freeze. Moreover, in th
OoO En cette matinée pluvieuse du dimanche 13 juin 2010, vers 10:59,
Sune Vuorela disait :
>> It is difficult to understand why we should wait freeze time to change
>> anything. Some people (including me) may be afraid that the problem may
>> not be corrected because of the freeze. Moreov
On 2010-06-13, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> It is difficult to understand why we should wait freeze time to change
> anything. Some people (including me) may be afraid that the problem may
> not be corrected because of the freeze. Moreover, in the meantime, some
> applications don't work with IPv
OoO En cette matinée pluvieuse du dimanche 13 juin 2010, vers 10:09,
Stefano Zacchiroli disait :
> Now, the above is used routinely cum grano salis by individual
> maintainers, that before pushing big changes that affect others discuss
> them first and listen to feedback of the others. As rep
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 01:58:30AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> I am very much surprised at the Debian community's passivity with
> respect to what I see as a clear violation of Debian's commitment to
> collective decision taking.
I think this is because you do not fully understand how decis
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 11:01:50AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 01:58:30AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > In netbase 4.38, Marco d'Itri has unilaterally decided to change the
> > value of the net.ipv6.bindv6only sysctl to 1. This change has the
> > following effects:
* Bastian Blank , 2010-06-12, 11:01:
In netbase 4.38, Marco d'Itri has unilaterally decided to change the
value of the net.ipv6.bindv6only sysctl to 1. This change has the
following effects:
(1) it violates POSIX 2008, Volume 2, Section 2.10.20;
(2) it violates RFC 3493, Section 5.3;
(3) it
Le samedi 12 juin 2010 à 11:01 +0200, Bastian Blank a écrit :
> Please start with "fixing" the FreeBSD kernel. It only supports this
> mode of operation.
I agree this should be done, but why should it be done before changing
the default for the Linux ports?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 01:58:30AM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> In netbase 4.38, Marco d'Itri has unilaterally decided to change the
> value of the net.ipv6.bindv6only sysctl to 1. This change has the
> following effects:
>
> (1) it violates POSIX 2008, Volume 2, Section 2.10.20;
> (2) it
Dear Juliusz,
On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 01:58:30 +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I would like to raise the issue of #560238 once again.
>
> In netbase 4.38, Marco d'Itri has unilaterally decided to change the
> value of the net.ipv6.bindv6only sysctl to 1. This change has the
>
Dear all,
I would like to raise the issue of #560238 once again.
In netbase 4.38, Marco d'Itri has unilaterally decided to change the
value of the net.ipv6.bindv6only sysctl to 1. This change has the
following effects:
(1) it violates POSIX 2008, Volume 2, Section 2.10.20;
(2) it violates RFC
36 matches
Mail list logo
