svn commit: r439421 - in head/www/nginx: . files

[Ian Lepore]

On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 18:09 +0100, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
> On 27/04/17 17:55, Ian Lepore wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 16:46 +0000, Sergey A. Osokin wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 08:24:55AM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Le 26/04/2017 ?? 18:53, Sergey A. Osokin a ??crit :
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 06:18:44PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Le 26/04/2017 ?? 01:18, Sergey A. Osokin a ??crit :
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Author: osa
> > > > > > > Date: Tue Apr 25 23:18:09 2017
> > > > > > > New Revision: 439421
> > > > > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/439421
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Log:
> > > > > > >   Upgrade from 1.10.3 to 1.12.0.
> > > > > > >   
> > > > > > >   ChangeLog:	http://nginx.org/en/CHANGES-1.12
> > > > > > >   
> > > > > > >   Remove IPV6 knob, IPv6 now compiled-in automatically if
> > > > > > > support is found.
> > > > > > This still feels like a very bad idea.
> > > > > Could you please explain what exactly is very bad here?
> > > > We had that talk like a week or two ago. It means that if the
> > > > package
> > > > builder support IPv6 it will not work on a box without it, and
> > > > if
> > > > the
> > > > package builder does not support IPv6, a box with IPv6 will not
> > > > be
> > > > able
> > > > to use nginx with IPv6.
> > > Then you can go ahead and enable IPv6 on the package builder like
> > > you
> > > did the
> > > same for the third-party moz_zip module.
> > > 
> > > INET6 in FreeBSD's GENERIC kernel for years, I see no reason why
> > > shouldn't use it.
> > > 
> > Why do you continue to argue with multiple people who've expressed
> > a
> > real-world need for this utterly trivial request to leave the IPV6
> > knob
> > in place?
> > 
> > In the real world I have builder machines which DO have IPv6
> > enabled,
> > which must be able to create packages that run on machines that do
> > NOT
> > have IPv6 enabled.
> Despite of the fact that I hate the most of IPv6 implementations, I
> really *hate* when somebody tries to complicate it even more. It is
> 2017
> year so far and almost 20 years since IPv6 has been formally
> introduced.
> Why do we still support IPv6 less configurations anywhere? Perhaps,
> we
> should go further and start support IPv4 less configurations (just
> IPX
> like in 90s) or TCP less configurations? These things should just
> die.
> Come on, 20 years is enough time frame to state that IPv6 must be
> supported by any sane OS. I'd vote to remove this legacy knob from
> the
> ports completely (and that will simplify pkg job as well).

Astounding: Everyone has to conform to your views to use this port.

Do you maintain the port for users, or just as a vehicle to further
your religion about internet protocols?

-- Ian