Bug 550270
| Summary: | Networkmanager applet does NOT accept ipv6 info | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | udo <udovdh> |
| Component: | NetworkManager | Assignee: | Dan Williams <dcbw> |
| Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | high | ||
| Version: | 12 | CC: | dcbw, fschwarz |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2010-01-04 22:18:34 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
udo
2009-12-24 10:27:51 UTC
Also see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=512155 for another issue in this area of design. BTW: the editing of ifcfg-eth0 method DOES work. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523288 ? Might be an older issue, even, to add pain to the injury... NetworkManager-gnome-0.7.997-2.git20091214.fc12.x86_64 NetworkManager-glib-0.7.997-2.git20091214.fc12.x86_64 NetworkManager-0.7.997-2.git20091214.fc12.x86_64 do not fix the issue.... udo: Do you have system-wide connections configured? If so, this is a duplicate of bug 523288. Sharing stuff with all users (none besides me) is the default. (!) But why is it then the same as the bug you mention? I mean: i do not change that share setting, it is already enabled. The right IPv6 number can already be in ifcfg-eth0 or not, it doesn't matter. The info is never accepted. How could this ever be released? Yes, I know it is work from humans, etc, but these are the least complicated tests that the software should be able to pass. FC12 should have (!) matured beyond a certain acceptable point for basic functionalities by now. No, aside from me complaining, how can we find the root cause? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 523288 *** |