On 14 June 2010 16:35, Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it> wrote: > I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this > leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun > is unwilling to fix.
Is there software that still requires this proprietary Java implementation? I hear openjdk is getting better all the time. Is proprietary Java the only reason we should keep having bindv6only=0? Why not just set bindv6only=0 if this is installed on a system? e.g. you could make it part of the installer deb. > Unless the maintainer believes that we can get a fixed version before > the release then I propose to stop setting bindv6only=1 by default. > While it was a useful experiment, since it allowed to expose and fix a > fair number of bugs, it should not compromise the general usability of > Debian systems. > > I do not consider the POSIX-related arguments interesting. I would be disappointed to think Debian has decided not to "do the right thing" for all of Debian because it might break a proprietary application that some people might use. For me, bindv6only=0 seems like an ugly hack designed to make existing applications work without change. Although all these arguments have been hashed out before, no point to repeat them. -- Brian May <br...@microcomaustralia.com.au> -- 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/aanlktimsxdl3ekus_5fsmma0pfrravlf6ug5b3vrw...@mail.gmail.com
