[Exherbo-dev] Dropping the ipv6 option globally

Nikolay Orlyuk virkony at gmail.com
Thu Dec 12 09:15:01 UTC 2013


Agree about *necessary* when you just want your package to work.

But in some cases reason for me to have options is to check different
configurations of package, to reveal some bugs and give feedback to
upstream.
If upstream will decide that this is very obscure case they may drop
support for such configuration at all. And I'd prefer to try to force
upstream to drop IPv4-only configurations if those packages have problems.
Exherbo forces upstreams busy with fixing/patching their code and dropping
legacy code.

If I write a new package or update older one I may want to drop some
configurations (like -ipv6) if that's hard to support. In that way we'll
eventually will get rid of IPv4-only configurations but probably with
appropriate bug-reports in upstreams.

But for existing packages for which someone already spend some effort to
make it configurable why would we want to drop that option?




On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Bernd Steinhauser <
exherbo at bernd-steinhauser.de> wrote:

> On 11/12/13 18:55, Nikolay Orlyuk wrote:
>
>> I prefer to see Exherbo as a distributive which gives a good environment
>> for developer and allows much more customization than most user will want.
>> Having some people using IPv4 configuration for some libs/programs
>> usually allows to reveal issues related with such variant in upstream (ex.
>> net-misc/mtr).
>> I'd prefer to to drop options in upstream first and only then in
>> associated package.
>>
> There is a huge difference between providing options where it makes sense
> and providing an option for just about every config switch a package
> provides. In general, there should be as many options for a package as
> possible *but* only as many as *necessary*.
> It's just natural, that we don't get it right all the time, so if there is
> an option missing for a package which you think really should be there,
> then just hand in a patch which adds the option and states why you think
> that this option should exist. If the explanation is good enough there
> won't be a reason why it won't be included.
>
> Apart from that, there is of course always the possibility to use modify
> the exheres or use hooks.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Exherbo-dev mailing list
> Exherbo-dev at lists.exherbo.org
> http://lists.exherbo.org/mailman/listinfo/exherbo-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.exherbo.org/pipermail/exherbo-dev/attachments/20131212/6da60d39/attachment.html>


More information about the Exherbo-dev mailing list