On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 09:11:38AM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le vendredi, 24 octobre 2014, 13.25:45 j...@joshtriplett.org a écrit : > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:03:44PM +0200, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > > > Did you see Lennart's analysis on > > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=84604 ? > > > > Yes, I read that before responding. Between the two bugs, I think the > > fundamental problem is that CUPS refuses to support v4mapped IPv6 > > sockets, which are the only way to handle everything through one > > socket, and systemd can't currently work around that by configuring a > > socket per *available* address family without failing on unavailable > > address families. > > For the record; given my (current) understanding of the problem, I agree > with CUPS upstream choices here: refusing to support v4mapped IPv6 > sockets while supporting IPv4 sockets is a sane choice, which systemd > ought to support.
While I agree that systemd needs to cover this case, why do you think CUPS shouldn't support v4mapped? Did you read the document I previously linked to about not using v4mapped *on the wire* but using it *within a system*? - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-printing-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141025074614.GA1402@thin
