Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 7264

Summary:	ping -c fails to operate as expected
Product:	[Retired] Red Hat Linux	Reporter:	Kevin L. Mitchell <klmitch>
Component:	netkit-base	Assignee:	Jeff Johnson <jbj>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	6.1	CC:	kvaradhan, mpc
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:	2000-01-27 20:07:06 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 Kevin L. Mitchell 1999-11-23 18:19:00 UTC

I frequently do ping -c 100 <hostname>; I expect it to send exactly
100 packets and tell me how many it got back, along with all the
statistics it reports.  However, the change apparently introduced
with RedHat 6.0 causes it to wait until it receives 100 responses,
which is exactly the opposite of every single ping program I have
ever used, and exactly the opposite of the way I want it to work.
There is no option to revert this blatently broken behavior, either.

Comment 1 kvaradhan 2000-01-13 18:44:59 UTC

Also: for all related ping -c bugs reported:


Redhat-6.1, the ping-ank.patch is broken (probably also the kuznetsov patch).
Fix the patch by hand, rebuild the rpm and reinstall.   The two lines to fix
are:


% rpm -ivh netkit-base-0.10-37.src.rpm
% cd /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES
% vi ping-ank.patch
	line 929:  Change +725,12 to +725,13
	line 937:  Remove the leading -
	line 1392: Change +1020,7 to +1020,8
	line 1397: Remove the leading -
	Save and exit
% cd /usr/src/rdhat/SPECS
% rpm -bb netkit-base.spec
% cd /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386
% rpm -Uvh --force netkit-base-0.10-37.i386.rpm

People who know this rpm stuff better, or redhat could issue a new patch to
this whole problem.


Kannan

Comment 2 Jeff Johnson 2000-01-27 20:07:59 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 8724 ***