bindv6only again
 

I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's
been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of
net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the
impression that people agree that the change was a mistake.

May I therefore most humbly suggest that Debian should revert the change
to the default (/etc/sysctl.d/bindv6only.conf), and thus become once
again compatible with what RFC 3493 says and most application developers
expect?

Juliusz

bindv6only again
 

Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's
> been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of
> net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the
> impression that people agree that the change was a mistake.

Not again...

> May I therefore most humbly suggest that Debian should revert the change
> to the default (/etc/sysctl.d/bindv6only.conf), and thus become once
> again compatible with what RFC 3493 says and most application developers
> expect?

On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administrator, applications
expecting specific setting are broken anyway (on Linux), no matter what
RFC says and what default on Debian is. And ability to change the
default is definitely feature, not a bug.

If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not
in testing) didn't manage that. There are really no reasons to revert.

Jarek.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100426141405.GA32291@vilo.eu.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100426141405.GA32291@vilo.eu.org

bindv6only again
 

On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
> If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
> explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
> http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not
> in testing) didn't manage that. There are really no reasons to revert.
Did you read this mailing list? (or even that bug to the end).

Because you're stating something false.


Bye
--
Salvo Tomaselli


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201004261646.17113.tiposchi@tiscali.it">http://lists.debian.org/201004261646.17113.tiposchi@tiscali.it

bindv6only again
 

>> unless I've missed something, I'm under the impression that people
>> agree that the change was a mistake.

> Not again...

What do you mean?

The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
the one that people don't want.

> On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administrator,

I am aware of that. It is the default value that we are speaking about.

> applications expecting specific setting are broken anyway (on Linux),
> no matter what RFC says and what default on Debian is.

This is of course nonsense. Choosing the default value that is
incompatible with all other Unix systems (with the exception of OpenBSD)
and then complaining about applications being broken doesn't strike me
as a particularly productive attitude.

Juliusz


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 87633e5kpn.fsf@pirx.pps.jussieu.fr">http://lists.debian.org/87633e5kpn.fsf@pirx.pps.jussieu.fr

bindv6only again
 

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> the one that people don't want.

It's the one that I want.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100426151705.GA26675@scru.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100426151705.GA26675@scru.org

bindv6only again
 

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:46:17PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
>> If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
>> explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
>> http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not
>> in testing) didn't manage that. There are really no reasons to revert.
> Did you read this mailing list? (or even that bug to the end).
>
> Because you're stating something false.

560238 is blocked only by 579033, end of bug report mentions also wine,
which I've missed. Reports against other packages are already closed. Am
I missing something else?

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administrator,
>
> I am aware of that. It is the default value that we are speaking about.
>
>> applications expecting specific setting are broken anyway (on Linux),
>> no matter what RFC says and what default on Debian is.
>
> This is of course nonsense. Choosing the default value that is
> incompatible with all other Unix systems (with the exception of OpenBSD)
> and then complaining about applications being broken doesn't strike me
> as a particularly productive attitude.

My point was, that applications claiming compatibility with Linux cannot
assume particular value of bindv6only regardless of RFC or any value
Debian chooses. I've reported bugs about incompatibility with
bindv6only=1 before the whole discussion popped up.

We are not incompatible with other Unices, only with few buggy
applications.

Jarek.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100426153500.GA7897@vilo.eu.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100426153500.GA7897@vilo.eu.org

bindv6only again
 

On Monday 26 April 2010 17:17:05 Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> > the one that people don't want.
>
> It's the one that I want.
>
You could still change it, right?
--
Salvo Tomaselli


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201004261735.45100.tiposchi@tiscali.it">http://lists.debian.org/201004261735.45100.tiposchi@tiscali.it

bindv6only again
 

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 05:35:45PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> You could still change it, right?

So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software,
just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically
make Hudson less broken.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20100426154204.GA26858@scru.org">http://lists.debian.org/20100426154204.GA26858@scru.org

bindv6only again
 

On Monday 26 April 2010 17:42:04 Clint Adams wrote:
> So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software,
> just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically
> make Hudson less broken.

You have a missconception of "broken".
POSIX has a default value, the developers will read the POSIX documentation
and tell you to screw you if you do a bugreport saying that if you voluntarily
make your system non-compliant then their software doesn't work.

Bye

--
Salvo Tomaselli


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201004261802.15602.tiposchi@tiscali.it">http://lists.debian.org/201004261802.15602.tiposchi@tiscali.it

bindv6only again
 

On Monday 26 April 2010 17:35:00 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
> 560238 is blocked only by 579033, end of bug report mentions also wine,
> which I've missed. Reports against other packages are already closed. Am
> I missing something else?
Read this mailing list, some packages were mentioned.

> My point was, that applications claiming compatibility with Linux cannot
> assume particular value of bindv6only regardless of RFC or any value
> Debian chooses. I've reported bugs about incompatibility with
> bindv6only=1 before the whole discussion popped up.
That application (which i maintain btw) claims compatibility with posix, not
with linux.

> We are not incompatible with other Unices, only with few buggy
> applications.
Being posix compliant is not a bug.
The only reason i applied the patch is because i didn't want the package to be
broken. I still believe the patch didn't fix any bug.


Bye
--
Salvo Tomaselli


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201004261810.53442.tiposchi@tiscali.it">http://lists.debian.org/201004261810.53442.tiposchi@tiscali.it