Les questions à la con - Page 3

Meowcate (./60) :
Kevin Kofler adhère à quel parti politique ? je n'arrive pas à trouver le sommeil à me demander si son obsession pour le monde du logiciel libre le pousse au communisme.

The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back.

This part has a morale, too, and it is almost the same: don't trust this person. Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give Stallman any possibility to influence your future. Phrases like

[...] GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
just invites him to screw you when it pleases him. Rip out the "any later version" part and make your own decisions when to use a different license since otherwise he can potentially do you or your work harm.

squalyl (./68) :
cui la est pas mal non plus

http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4980

------- Additional Comment #8 From Howard Chu 2007-12-01 20:09 [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #3)
> Stop reopening bugs. Search the web if you want an explanation, I don't have
> anything handy and certainly have no interest in writing it up.

I've found no discussion of this change on any of the glibc mailing list
archives, after searching through September-November 2006 on libc-announce,
libc-hacker, libc-alpha, glibc-cvs, or glibc-bugs. I think it's fair to say that
if you don't want people to keep asking stupid questions, a little more
documentation of your rationale will help.

The CVS log entry is useful, at least:

Support IPv6-style addresses for IPv4 queries if they
can be mapped.

But your implementation violates RFC2553: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2553.txt
Page 25:

Also note that the
IPv6 hex addresses "::" and "::1" MUST NOT be treated as IPv4-
compatible addresses, ...

Also for the macro in section 6.7 IN6_IS_ADDR_V4COMPAT MUST return
false for "::" and "::1".

I.e., the RFC specifically forbids the mapping of the IPV6 loopback address to
IPv4. As far as I can see, the current glibc behavior here is a bug.

------- Additional Comment #9 From Howard Chu 2007-12-14 03:31 [reply] -------
Treating the IPv6 loopback address this way violates RFC2553.

[...]

------- Additional Comment #10 From Ulrich Drepper 2007-12-14 03:52 [reply] -------
Stop reopening the bug. If you want explanations pay somebody.

------- Additional Comment #11 From Mike Frysinger 2008-04-09 19:12 [reply] -------
i could have sworn glibc was an FSF/GNU project which meant open source. but
apparently i'm mistaken. if you want anything out of glibc, you've got to pay
for it. awesome!

[...]

------- Additional Comment #17 From Dave Houston 2008-07-07 05:05 [reply] -------
Paid $1 via paypal. Trans ID 3H4989806A1962407

Please fix.

[...]

------- Additional Comment #36 From Ulrich Drepper 2008-07-08 18:28 [reply] -------
(In reply to comment #35)
> Is this open source terrorism? "Pay us money or the bug stays!"

Idiot. There is no bug. Don't reopen.