Re: Is INET6 a required option these days? (kernel build failure)

From: Gary Jennejohn <garyj_at_gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 14:13:01 UTC
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:53:10 +0200
Kristof Provost <kp@freebsd.org> wrote:

> > On 29 Sep 2024, at 04:46, Zhenlei Huang <zlei@freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> > ?
> >
> >> On Sep 27, 2024, at 6:07 PM, Gary Jennejohn <garyj@gmx.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 26 Sep 2024 14:58:40 -0400
> >>> Ian FREISLICH <ianfreislich@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Lately there have been a couple of commits that fail to build because v6 being compiled in despite INET6 being undefined. I think the latest is 905db4aa88775865097714c170f4503da385747c.
> >>>
> >>> /usr/src/sys/netpfil/pf/pf.c:8762:38: error: no member named 'icmp6' in 'union pf_headers'; did you mean 'icmp'?
> >>> 8762 |                 if (!pf_pull_hdr(m, *off, &pd->hdr.icmp6, icmp_hlen,
> >>>
> >>> Ian
> >>>
> >>
> >> This happens now and then because most committers have INET6 enabled and
> >> they forget that INET6 is an option and not mandatory.
> >
> > Kristof is landing lots of commits from upstream ( OpenBSD ), so we need be patient with him ...
> >
> There may have been intermittent breakage, although I always try to avoid that, but main currently just works.
>
> >>
> >> I don't have INET6 enabled and have reported a number of problems in the
> >> source as a result of that.
>
> I strongly advise against running non-default configurations. They're always less tested (and thus more buggy) and harder to support.
>
> Only do so if there?s genuinely no alternative.
>

I personally have been using a customized kernel configuration file for
25 years or more and I have no intention of changing it.

Just because INET6 shows up in all the boilerplate config files doesn't
change the fact that INET6 is still an option.

--
Gary Jennejohn