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-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201004261810.53442.tipos...@tiscali.it
