On Saturday 15 May 2010 12:09:47 David Weinehall wrote:
> Last time I checked, /usr/bin is also part of default $PATH...
Tricky, it becomes part of it later, not from the beginning.
But that wasn't the point. The point was that if an admin changes something to
a non-standard behavior, then has to
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 06:39:46PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Salvo Tomaselli
>
> | On Thursday 13 May 2010 17:54:04 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
> | > application that didn't handle IFS or PATH being different from its
]] Salvo Tomaselli
| > And handling bindv6only is absolutely trivial.
|
| Right, but there are many others sysctl options, why should the apps
| deal with this particular one and not with the others?
They should.
--
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends a
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 05:54:04PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> ]] Juliusz Chroboczek
> Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
> application that didn't handle IFS or PATH being different from its
> default value would be buggy. If it absolutely needs a given valu
On Thursday 13 May 2010 18:39:46 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Why is this relevant? If you remove a POSIX-defined utility from $PATH,
> your system is no longer POSIX-compliant, not to mention a fully-working
> Debian system.
Strange that now being POSIX-compliant is important but it isn't when we tal
]] Salvo Tomaselli
| On Thursday 13 May 2010 17:54:04 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
| > application that didn't handle IFS or PATH being different from its
| > default value would be buggy.
|
| Do you know what happens if you move
> | bindv6only=0 is assumed by both POSIX and RFC 3493.
>
> As the default value, yes. Not as the only possible value.
Please stop repeating this legend, it is simply not true.
POSIX 2008, Volume 2, Section 2.10.20 is extremely clear that AF_INET6
sockets can be used for IPv4:
Applications
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Juliusz Chroboczek
>
> | >> What if it is just installed from the tarball?
> |
> | > Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
> |
> | Proprietary, granted, but why buggy?
>
> Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
> ap
On Thursday 13 May 2010 17:54:04 Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
> application that didn't handle IFS or PATH being different from its
> default value would be buggy.
Do you know what happens if you move /bin/mkdir to /usr/bin/mkdir?
SSH
]] Juliusz Chroboczek
| >> What if it is just installed from the tarball?
|
| > Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
|
| Proprietary, granted, but why buggy?
Because it does not handle non-default values. This is just like an
application that didn't handle IFS or PATH be
On Thursday 13 May 2010 15:33:42 Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Proprietary, granted, but why buggy? bindv6only=0 is assumed by both
> POSIX and RFC 3493.
I agree with you, but in this mailing list apparently the word "standard"
might mean many many things.
You might say "standard" meaning "i will
>> What if it is just installed from the tarball?
> Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
Proprietary, granted, but why buggy? bindv6only=0 is assumed by both
POSIX and RFC 3493.
--jch
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "un
On Saturday 08 May 2010 20:33:57 Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> It could add a file in /etc/sysctl.d/ to override the current
> /etc/sysctl.d/bindv6only.conf setting, and disable
> "net.ipv6.bindv6only = 1" when sun-java6 is installed. :)
Wouldn't that introduce some strange heisenbug related to whi
On 09/05/2010 01:45, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:16:10AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
>> What if it is just installed from the tarball?
>
> Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
Which should not prevent this person from running it, especially when
a
Vincent Danjean writes:
> And I see in these threads lots of things broken (including sun java that
> it used/required for lots of software not necessarily packaged in Debian)
> and no visible gains for users.
>
> I do not understand what is the purpose to say we will wait before taking
> a decisi
Le samedi 08 mai 2010 à 19:25 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit :
> On May 05, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>
> > the bugs in applications. I would find very strange if we release sqeeze
> > with a broken sun's java (even if it is non-free) and no good replacement.
> Me too, but I still hope that it could be
On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 12:16:10AM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> What if it is just installed from the tarball?
Then that person is still using buggy, non-free software.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
On 08/05/2010 20:33, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Niels Thykier]
>> I do not think the maintainers can do anything about sun-java6 other
>> than ask users to modify the netbase config file. To the best of my
>> knowledge there is no source code available for sun-java6.
>
> It could add a file
[Niels Thykier]
> I do not think the maintainers can do anything about sun-java6 other
> than ask users to modify the netbase config file. To the best of my
> knowledge there is no source code available for sun-java6.
It could add a file in /etc/sysctl.d/ to override the current
/etc/sysctl.d/bin
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 05, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>
>> the bugs in applications. I would find very strange if we release sqeeze
>> with a broken sun's java (even if it is non-free) and no good replacement.
> Me too, but I still hope that it could be fixed.
> Maybe the maintainer could provi
On May 05, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> the bugs in applications. I would find very strange if we release sqeeze
> with a broken sun's java (even if it is non-free) and no good replacement.
Me too, but I still hope that it could be fixed.
Maybe the maintainer could provide some of his toughts...
--
On 05/05/2010 09:18, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2010-05-04, Vincent Danjean wrote:
>> On 27/04/2010 13:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>>> On Apr 27, Simon Huggins wrote:
Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
breaks that package or are you not bothered about bre
On 2010-05-04, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> On 27/04/2010 13:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> On Apr 27, Simon Huggins wrote:
>>> Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
>>> breaks that package or are you not bothered about breaking non-free
>>> software?
>> Nobody bothered
On 27/04/2010 13:43, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 27, Simon Huggins wrote:
>> Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
>> breaks that package or are you not bothered about breaking non-free
>> software?
> Nobody bothered to register this in the BTS, I did now.
> I a
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 27, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>> But you're breaking peoples' systems *now*. And breaking systems
> Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.
>
> Based on this data I believe that the change has been a great suc
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 18:33:58 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> So the question is then if you care about kernels without ipv6
> support. If getaddrinfo() returns an ipv6 address and you
> don't go over the list, you have a problem.
>
gdm first calls getaddrinfo() with hints.ai_family == AF_INET6.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 07:46:18PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 18:59:16 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> > I didn't look at the source, but if it's already using
> > getaddrinfo() and going over all the addresses it returned,
> > I don't see why it should be broken with eit
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 01:40:53PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 27, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
> > reasonable commenter), and now you're saying that Julien Cristau is "the
> > peanut gallery".
> No, I am not.
>
> > But you're breaking peoples' systems *now*. And breaking systems
> Which
On 27/04/2010 17:18, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Marco d'Itri]
>> Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.
>
> Well, there is #572279 against lighttpd. It's not directly a bug with
> bindv6only, but it is caused by the fix for bindv6only.
It also breaks many java applica
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 18:59:16 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I didn't look at the source, but if it's already using
> getaddrinfo() and going over all the addresses it returned,
> I don't see why it should be broken with either value of
> the option.
>
> So I can only assume that it doesn't go ov
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 07:54:53PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:30:14 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Good. Now if you or one of those who advocate this "broken by default"
> > behavior could provide patches for gdm3, this would be more productive.
> >
> Not that I
[Marco d'Itri]
> Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.
Well, there is #572279 against lighttpd. It's not directly a bug with
bindv6only, but it is caused by the fix for bindv6only.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Apr 27, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> reasonable commenter), and now you're saying that Julien Cristau is "the
> peanut gallery".
No, I am not.
> But you're breaking peoples' systems *now*. And breaking systems
Which ones? There is only one bug open (gdm) and it has patches.
Based on this dat
On Apr 27, Simon Huggins wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:46:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > - as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice
> Not sure what you mean here.
We have time until the freeze to determine the impact of this change.
> Anyway, is there a reaso
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:46:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> - as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice
Not sure what you mean here.
Anyway, is there a reason that #560238 isn't blocked by #560044 given it
breaks that package or are you not bothered about breaking non
Florian Weimer, le Tue 27 Apr 2010 09:15:12 +0200, a écrit :
> * Julien Cristau:
>
> > +#if defined(ENABLE_IPV6) && defined(IPV6_V6ONLY)
> > + if (ai->ai_family == AF_INET6) {
> > + int zero = 0;
> > + if (setsockopt(sock, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, &zero,
> > sizeof(zero))
>> The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> - nobody cares about the consensus in the peanut gallery
I am not quite sure what to do with this sentence.
You have single-handedly broken peoples' systems, with no advance
warning. When people have complained, you have
> If POSIX-compliant apps may only work with one setting then the standard would
> say "only this setting is compliant with POSIX". Since it does not,
Yes it does. Section 2.10.20, see the paragraph titled "Compatibility
with IPv4".
You might argue that having this in the POSIX standard is a mis
* Julien Cristau:
> +#if defined(ENABLE_IPV6) && defined(IPV6_V6ONLY)
> + if (ai->ai_family == AF_INET6) {
> + int zero = 0;
> + if (setsockopt(sock, IPPROTO_IPV6, IPV6_V6ONLY, &zero,
> sizeof(zero)) < 0)
> + g_warning("setsockopt(IPV6_V6ONLY): %s",
On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 23:50 +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Mon Apr 26 23:21, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > > It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
> > > or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is cha
On Mon Apr 26 23:21, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
> > or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code
> > is buggy.
> >
> > There's no reason for the co
On Monday 26 April 2010 23:03:22 Don Armstrong wrote:
> It's a system wide default which can be changed by the administrator
> or by Debian. If the code fails when that default is changed, the code
> is buggy.
>
> There's no reason for the code to rely on a particular setting of the
> default when
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 21:59:08 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > It doesn't matter who sets it. If the program doesn't work properly
> > with either setting, and it's possible for it to work properly with
> > either setting by patching the code, it's a bug tha
On Monday 26 April 2010 21:59:08 Don Armstrong wrote:
> It doesn't matter who sets it. If the program doesn't work properly
> with either setting, and it's possible for it to work properly with
> either setting by patching the code, it's a bug that should be fixed.
It matters because in my view, th
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 20:22:07 Don Armstrong wrote:
> > If the software doesn't work properly when either of the permissible
> > values is set when it is possible for the software to handle either
> > value correctly, the software is buggy. It may not
On Apr 26, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
Because:
- nobody cares about the consensus in the peanut gallery
- as explained in #560238, it is still not the time to make a choice
> This is of course nonsense. Choosing the default
On Monday 26 April 2010 20:22:07 Don Armstrong wrote:
> There's no conflict here. The definition quoted says nothing about
> default meaning "only permittable", exactly as Matthew claims above.
>
> If the software doesn't work properly when either of the permissible
> values is set when it is poss
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 18:30:29 Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > Default does not mean "only permittable". If POSIX allows it to be
> > set to either value, then no matter what the _default_ is, not
> > coping with either is a bug.
>
> Default: a selection
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:54:53 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:30:14 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > > > The apparent consens
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 19:30:14 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> > > the one that peop
On Monday 26 April 2010 18:30:29 Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Default does not mean "only permittable". If POSIX allows it to be set to
> either value, then no matter what the _default_ is, not coping with either
> is a bug.
Default: a selection automatically used by a computer program in the absence
Le lundi 26 avril 2010 à 15:17 +, Clint Adams a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> > the one that people don't want.
>
> It's the one that I want.
Good. Now if you or one of
On Mon Apr 26 18:02, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> You have a missconception of "broken".
> POSIX has a default value, the developers will read the POSIX documentation
> and tell you to screw you if you do a bugreport saying that if you
> voluntarily
> make your system non-compliant then their softwa
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 w
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:42:04 Clint Adams wrote:
> So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software,
> just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically
> make Hudson less broken.
You have a missconception of "broken".
POSIX has a default value, the developers will
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:46:17PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
>> If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
>> explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
>> http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only o
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 05:35:45PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> You could still change it, right?
So could you, but that's not going to fix the broken software,
just like disabling the Tomcat security manager doesn't magically
make Hudson less broken.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel
On Monday 26 April 2010 17:17:05 Clint Adams wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> > The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> > the one that people don't want.
>
> It's the one that I want.
>
You could still change it, right?
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:53:24PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
> the one that people don't want.
It's the one that I want.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscrib
>> unless I've missed something, I'm under the impression that people
>> agree that the change was a mistake.
> Not again...
What do you mean?
The apparent consensus is being ignored -- the default value is still
the one that people don't want.
> On Linux bindv6only is configurable by administr
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
> If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
> explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
> http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one package in Debian (which is not
> in testing) didn't manage that. T
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
> I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's
> been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of
> net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the
> impression that people agree that t
I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's
been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of
net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the
impression that people agree that the change was a mistake.
May I therefore most humb
63 matches
Mail list logo
