On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 18:34:45 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > ... > Sites that use Postfix 2.8 without IPv6 have no inet_protocols > setting in main.cf. They have never needed one because that was the > default. Having to add "inet_protocols = whatever" for Postfix > 2.9 is an unnecessary compatibility break that can be avoided. > > Sites that currently rely on the default (no IPv6) must not experience > a compatibility break just because the built-in default was changed. > > It is a major mistake at this time to turn on IPv6 in Postfix by > default, because it will suck performance for the far majority of > sites with useless DNS lookups and useless connection attempts. > > This is harmful for Postfix market share.
This point is not lost on me, and believe it or not: I'm actually an advocate of Postfix, so a loss of market share is counter to my own interests. > Unlike some open source products, I plan incompatible changes very > carefully. Where this is possible, this goes as follows: > > 1) First I change the built-in default; at the same time post-install > is changed to make a compatibility update to main.cf that restores > the old default, for sites that have relied on the old default. > > 2) Several years later, I remove the post-install code. > > If you cannot respect my effort to avoid incompatible changes, then > I will revert the change of the inet_protocols default value and > go back to Postfix 2.8 behavior. This means that people such as > Mark Martinec wil have to jump some extra hoops when they wish to > compile in an ipv4-less build environment. That is still better > than having Postfix ruined by a maintainer who does not respect my > attempts to phase in a major change with a great deal of care. In my reply to your initial message, I explicitly noted that I mishandled this situation, and should have considered another solution to address the ports-specific side effect caused by the inet_protocols change. Furthermore, I stated that I intend to align the port's behavior with how you correctly designed the inet_protocols change to be phased in. Where in all this do you construe a lack of respect for your efforts? If someome makes a mistake, they are not signaling a lack of respect for your work. In fact, in the context of this thread, your accusing of *me* for lacking respect towards *you* is disappointingly ironic. I do not believe Mark should have to jump through extra hoops, or that you should revert the change. This is a FreeBSD port-specific problem created by me that I will address as soon as I can. -- Sahil Tandon
pgpAExDgZOayr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
