On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 04:16:09PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > * Gilles Chehade <gil...@poolp.org> [2016-05-17 15:56]: > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 08:27:42AM -0500, Brent Cook wrote: > > > This patch came by way of the openntpd github. Linux (and possibly others) > > > will attempt to bind to 0.0.0.0 when binding to '::' and return an error > > > if > > > it can't, unless IPV6_V6ONLY is set. See > > > https://github.com/openntpd-portable/openntpd-portable/issues/19 > > > > > > OK as an in-tree patch? OpenBSD seems to adopt a more liberal > > > interpretation and not return a failure in the same scenario. (The patch > > > against the 5.7 tree, but you get the idea) > > > > > > > I'm ok as far as I'm concerned and would like to do the same with > > OpenSMTPD to reduce delta with portable ;-) > > hmmmmmm. > > > > +#ifdef IPV6_V6ONLY > > > + if (la->sa.ss_family == AF_INET6 && setsockopt(la->fd, > > > + IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, &on, sizeof(on)) == -1) > > > + log_warn("setsockopt IPV6_V6ONLY"); > > > +#endif > > this is exactly what is supposed to live in the portable imho, to not > clutter the native sources. > > Yes, it's small. > Where exactly do you draw the line? >
well, i draw it with code that gets "ignored" on OpenBSD. in smtpd portable we have PAM and other features that don't we don't want to clutter the OpenBSD tree. that's because if we merged in OpenBSD, we'd have portions of code skipped at compile. if some code can run harmlessly in OpenBSD and we actually have it ignored in some portable systems, i'm not opposed to removing a delta between native & portable. -- Gilles Chehade https://www.poolp.org @poolpOrg
