Bug 195271 (IPv6Blocker)
Description
David Woodhouse
2006-06-14 17:12:26 UTC
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 181490 *** Reopening for Fedora For those who have just had bugs filed against their packages without much explanation and who are now slightly confused -- we should be making sure that all packages are properly protocol-agnostic, and work as well with IPv6 as they do with IPv4. For further information on how to achieve this, please see http://people.redhat.com/drepper/userapi-ipv6.html and http://www.ipv6style.jp/en/apps/20030829/index.shtml Also, http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/ and http://gsyc.escet.urjc.es/~eva/IPv6-web/ipv6.html have nice code examples, comparing the original IPv4-only, IPv6-only, and AF-independent approaches. Adding Tracking keyword Bug #532972 should be added as a dependency, not sure how to do that myself. Tore Another string of bugs and reports of missing IPv6 support in applications that keeps me from running a IPv6-only network, should probably be added as dependencies as well: #539611 #538499 #530670 #530669 #523288 Tore, who's hoping that F13 will be the first truly IPv6-ready Linux distro... Tore, have you tried putting this bug number into the bugs you opened under "Blocks: "? Blocks: 195271 Charles, no - didn't try that. My Bugzilla-fu is quite limited... :-) But it certainly does the trick just fine, thanks for the tip! Tore I wasn't able to do it for bug #523288 (probably because I didn't submit it), but the four others should be fine now. Tore Hi, I didn't know about this tracker and started a new one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883152 My tracker bug is about both IPv4 and IPv6, not focused only on IPv6, as IPv4 or even node-local networking problems were created during the quest for IPv6 support. The starting point was a bunch of bug reports (not only in this bugzilla and not only on Fedora) that was related to the usage of getaddrinfo() which is used improperly in a lot of software, and a problem with AI_ADDRCONFIG in getaddrinfo() whose implementation is broken in glibc. For more information, follow the links from a feature page I started: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DualstackNetworking Please propose a solution to having two tracker bugs for very similar things. I think that the new one is much more readable and current and is related to the Fedora Feature. Therefore I ask if making the older bug duplicate of the newer bug would be good enough. It is also possible to just block the newer bug by the older one. |