[haiku-development] Fwd: Re: Question : Haiku + Transmission
- From: Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: haiku-development@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 16:36:34 -0400
1 more to follow.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: François Revol <revol@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [haiku-development] Re: Question : Haiku + Transmission
To: Matt Madia <mattmadia@xxxxxxxxx>
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:00 PM, François Revol <revol@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Well he needs to know if he wants his software to be portable.
> > Another option is to split the functions into *_ip4() and *_ip6()
> > implemented in separate files...
> >
> > François.
>
> Judging by the following discussion, Transmission's svn trunk is
> being
> blocked by :
> - proper port of libnatpmp (part of MiniUPnP)
does it require IPv6 ?
> - proper IPv6 implementation
>
> At this point, I'm personally not pursuing any further discussions
> with the Transmission dev team to implement conditional IPv6 support.
>
> http://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/1682#comment:16 : livings124
> ¶
> I don't think it's a good idea to complicate our code base to support
> an incomplete operating system. Especially since your patch was
> rejected by the maintainers of miniupnp, whose code we rely on.
Separating protocol supports doesn't always mean complicating, it could
also mean cleaning up.
> <BentMyWookie> windows is a finished operating system
> <BentMyWookie> and is a major os
And it stays major because it's own monopoly enforces people to
sticking to its API and thus making it a requirement which closes the
feedback loop.
> <BentMyWookie> as opposed to cluttering the code for something that's
> not finished
Replacing the #ifdef by cleanly separated code per protocol is always
cleaner than putting all of them at the same place.
That's just a moot arg.
> <mmadia> sorry if i came across that way, i just feel like you're
> shutting haiku out simply because it doesn't support IPv6.
> <BentMyWookie> there are multiple problems with haiku currently,
> namely that it doesn't support ipv6 and miniupnp doesn't work
You can send a patch.
> <BentMyWookie> and, as it's own devs stated, it doesn't support ipv6
> bc it's not finished yet
Forcing people to switch to IPv6 by making IPv6 mandatory to port apps
is a broken logic, people just won't ever port IPv6 aware apps this
way, and so will never have any incentive to actually implement IPv6.
That's counterproductive.
> <BentMyWookie> but the devs said they plan to add ipv6 afaict
You can send a patch.
François.
Other related posts:
