On Sun, Jun 02, 2019 at 02:00:54PM +0200, Tim Rühsen wrote:
> On 31.05.19 21:15, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 09:56:33AM -0400, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> I used PERL5LIB to put teests/ on path for Perl. It looks like at
> >> least one Debian machine I have is back to the Socket::inet_ntoa
> >> problems.
> >>
> >> I'm calling it good.
> >>
> >> The Perl people need to fix Socket::inet_ntoa, and the Debian people
> >> need to make it available. I'm guessing Debian is the holdup. They
> >> will leave things broke rather than supplying an update. It is a waste
> >> of time to file a Debian bug report.
> >>
> > You can report your issues directly to Socket authors if you believe the 
> > issue
> > is not specific to Debian.
> > 
> > May I know what's your issue with Socket::inet_ntoa?
> 
> It's not about Socket::inet_ntoa (sorry for not correcting this before).
> IMO, it's about https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=887590
> 
I see. Those are the IPv6 patches for HTTP::Daemon I wrote two years ago for
RHEL.

The patches are indeed quite large and have an effect on other packages that
use HTTP::Daemon. Especially on tests. Because various packages are not
prepared for HTTP::Daemon listening on an IPv6 socket. I understand why Debian
does not want to apply them to a stable distribution. Applying them would
change a behavior and people could get mad at them.

I can see two solutions for wget. Either use 127.0.0.1 instead of localhost
everywhere, or skip the particular test if HTTP::Daemon is unable to listen on
an IPv6 while plain Socket (or IO::Socket::IP) is.

-- Petr

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to