On 2026-09-19 20:41:06 +0200, Marco Moock wrote: > Am 18.09.26 um 14:30 schrieb Vincent Lefevre: > > On 2026-09-17 10:22:24 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > > > My point is that, reporting a bug, you should avoid non-essential steps to > > > reproduce it. More generic configuration that is closer to defaults means > > > that the scope of the issue is wider. It require less efforts to try and > > > to > > > create debug environment. In this thread you see that mention of disabled > > > IPv6 may insult people. Reaction of developers might be similar. > > > > "mention of disabled IPv6 may insult people"??? > > No, but it is a rather uncommon situation.
What is actually uncommon is a network with unsupported IPv6 and DNS servers that often return SERVFAIL. In any case, I don't see why IPv6 support in the kernel matters for nscd. I don't see any reason why nscd would do an IPv6 connection; that's useless for name resolving. > Then you cannot reasonably open a bug report - because the developers will > ask you to do such test. Set up a test environment (e.g. Virtualbox) and > track the issue down. Developers could (should) do their own tests: testing the behavior of nscd with an initial SERVFAIL for IPv4 and a valid IPv6 address (or the reverse). > > I was not aware of how nscd worked at the time of the bug report. > > The nscd(8) man page is ridiculously uninformative. Developers > > should do their work first. > > It is simply a cache for requests using the libc functions. Be aware that > the libc stuff is different in Linux/BSD/UNIX, so you may find information > that does not apply to the Linux implementation. I was just asking for the cache specification for nscd. > > BTW, I've just found that the French (and much older) version is much > > more informative: http://manpagesfr.free.fr/man/man8/nscd.8.html > > That doesn't say from which distribution it came (at I suppose that this corresponds to upstream. Or does the nscd(8) man page depend on the distribution? > > > When possible, use standard tools like getent instead of custom > > > programs or scripts. > > > > getent does *not* work in the same way. In particular, in the test, > > I got an exit status 2 in each case while IP addresses were available > > in each case (e.g. with getaddrinfo). And no error messages at all. > > That's very unhelpful. > > Can you give a test case? Already given, with results, in <[email protected]> (Sun, 13 Sep 2026 02:35:49 +0200). This is: #!/bin/sh getent ahostsv4 $1 || echo "Error: $?" getent ahostsv6 $1 || echo "Error: $?" getent ahosts $1 || echo "Error: $?" -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Pascaline project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
