Control: tags -1 + moreinfo unreproducible Hi,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 03:37:00PM +0100, Eric Valette wrote: > On 12/15/25 15:04, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > FYI, the wakeonlan script hasn't changed since at least bookworm > > (and this may be much more longer, as the script says 2005, though > > I'm wondering whether this is up-to-date). > > The script itself surely not, but perl, perl packages, kernel, ... So this > is not a sufficient reason. > > > > > > I do not suspect kernel as etherwake was working at the same time > > > wakeonlan was not. > > > I've noticed at my lab that packets seem to be sometimes randomly > > filtered or ignored. So it may be just luck that etherwake was working > > at that time. Unless the difference of behavior is reproducible, you > > cannot deduce anything. And if you can reproduce this, you should look > > at the differences with wireshark. > > Both machine are connected via a non managed switch no router in meddle and > almost no traffic (as I use it before starting transfer to my nas) . And > again this was systematic : at a certain period of time wakeonlan did not > send the magic packet or a corrupted version of it (did not run wireshark to > see exactly). No error as program return code. And etherwake was > systematically working. I did maybe ten of each and tried wakeonlan upstream > version also. > > But as I cannot reproduce the bug anaymore and wakeonlan and etherwake both > now work as expected I do not mind if the bug is closed. > > But since debian take the code upstream, upstream did some changes, and > debian version is not up-to-date so I would take the bug as an opportunity > to update the version to current upstream... Given the initial report mentioned kernel 6.12.44 to be used this might just have been https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/[email protected]/ which was for the 6.12.y series introduced in 6.12.43 and then fixed with 6.12.45. Regards, Salvatore
