Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 195271
Tracker bug for IPv6 support
Last modified: 2016-05-16 07:25:38 EDT
Description of problem:
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
*** 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
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.
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:
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: "?
Charles, no - didn't try that. My Bugzilla-fu is quite limited... :-) But it certainly does the trick just fine, thanks for the tip!
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.
Hi, I didn't know about this tracker and started a new one:
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:
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.