On Sunday 11 April 2010 23:32:01 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> After months, you *still* do not understand the issue...
...
> If a kernel without IPv6 support is used then e.g. an ACL will contain
> plain IPv4 addresses as expected, but when a kernel with IPv6 support is
> installed in your scenario then
* Hendrik Sattler [100409 20:21]:
> Actually not. They'll just assume that binding the port first for IPv4, then
> for IPv6 will work. Eventually, they'll be surprised that it fails elsewhere
> (notably those that stick to the _documented_ default value).
> As already noted, there are already syst
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 12:00:35 +0200, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Hendrik Sattler [100409 20:21]:
> > Actually not. They'll just assume that binding the port first for IPv4, then
> > for IPv6 will work. Eventually, they'll be surprised that it fails elsewhere
> > (notably those that stick to th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyżaniak (eloy)"
Owner: "Krzysztof Krzyżaniak (eloy)"
* Package name: libmemoize-expirelru-perl
Version : 0.55
Upstream Author : Brent B. Powers (B2Pi),
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Memoize-ExpireLRU/
* Lice
On Apr 12, Julien Cristau wrote:
> This has exactly nothing to do with the default value of bindv6only. If
> anything, setting it to 1 by default makes things worse for v4-only
> setups.
How so?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Apr 12, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > If a kernel without IPv6 support is used then e.g. an ACL will contain
> > plain IPv4 addresses as expected, but when a kernel with IPv6 support is
> > installed in your scenario then that ACL will not work anymore (without
> > special code) because now the I
On Feb 05, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I cannot even find anymore this i810_tco/i8xx_tco module, so in the next
> udev upload I will remove all watchdog drivers from the blacklist and
> maybe add back the ones reported as broken.
Done, with the exception of iTCO_wdt which is still blacklisted as
reques
On Monday 12 April 2010 18:19:08 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> You keep missing the point. Let me try with shorter sentences, if you
> still do not get it maybe I can try a puppets show.
I keep on missing the point because you keep on changing it. Try to be
coherent please. You have removed the bsd thing,
On 2010-04-12, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> On Monday 12 April 2010 18:19:08 Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> You keep missing the point. Let me try with shorter sentences, if you
>> still do not get it maybe I can try a puppets show.
> I keep on missing the point because you keep on changing it. Try to be
> c
Am Montag 12 April 2010 18:19:08 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> On Apr 12, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
> > > If a kernel without IPv6 support is used then e.g. an ACL will contain
> > > plain IPv4 addresses as expected, but when a kernel with IPv6 support
> > > is installed in your scenario then that ACL will
Salvo Tomaselli writes:
> On Monday 12 April 2010 18:19:08 Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> You keep missing the point. Let me try with shorter sentences, if you
>> still do not get it maybe I can try a puppets show.
> I keep on missing the point because you keep on changing it. Try to be
> coherent pleas
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> On Apr 12, Julien Cristau wrote:
>> This has exactly nothing to do with the default value of bindv6only.
>> If anything, setting it to 1 by default makes things worse for v4-only
>> setups.
> How so?
Because of IPv6 code that assumes that you get a socket
On Monday 12 April 2010 20:12:36 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Marco is not changing the point. What Marco describes has been the
> objection that several of us have had with bindv6only=0 from the very
> beginning. He's just more persistant about continuing to repeat the same
> point when people keep rai
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Raúl Sánchez Siles"
Owner: "Raúl Sánchez Siles"
* Package name: fsrunner
Version : 0.7.2
Upstream Author : Anders Aagaard
* URL : http://code.google.com/p/fsrunner/downloads/list
* License : GPL2
Programming Lang: C+
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 11:12:36AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Salvo Tomaselli writes:
> > On Monday 12 April 2010 18:19:08 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> >> You keep missing the point. Let me try with shorter sentences, if you
> >> still do not get it maybe I can try a puppets show.
"Standards good. BS
Salvo Tomaselli writes:
> On Monday 12 April 2010 20:12:36 Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Marco is not changing the point. What Marco describes has been the
> > objection that several of us have had with bindv6only=0 from the very
> > beginning. He's just more persistant about continuing to repeat the s
Adam Borowski writes:
> Instead of listening on a single socket, you need to change every single
> daemon to include a select() loop. That's explicitely allowed by all
> relevant RFCs and by POSIX, so breaking that is quite a regression.
Yeah, I understand why POSIX made the choice that they di
On 12/04/10 14:34, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
Java assumed you wanted the second bug. BSD picked the first bug. We
> have to pick one or the other. Neither choice is attractive.
No, java assumed the*POSIX default behaviour*. Why is the word*default* so
difficult to understand?
It means: "an opt
Am Montag 12 April 2010 23:25:16 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> Adam Borowski writes:
> > Instead of listening on a single socket, you need to change every single
> > daemon to include a select() loop. That's explicitely allowed by all
> > relevant RFCs and by POSIX, so breaking that is quite a regressi
Hendrik Sattler writes:
> It's a trade-off with a different goal in mind. So what. Both settings
> of bindv6only are if you cannot assume standard behaviour. Maybe we
> should patch this option _out_ of the linux kernel to get rid of the
> assumption that the default may be changed.
It's not an
20 matches
Mail list logo
