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
Description: PGP signature