[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-09-11 Thread Benjamin Peterson
Benjamin Peterson added the comment: New changeset d919c60e6936f853ad15040017f2c0bce0f027f8 by Benjamin Peterson (Chih-Hsuan Yen) in branch '2.7': [2.7] bpo-32502: Discard 64-bit (and other invalid) hardware addresses (GH-9125)

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-09-09 Thread Chih-Hsuan Yen
Chih-Hsuan Yen added the comment: I created the backport PR for 2.7 branch. Can anyone reopen this issue? -- versions: +Python 2.7 ___ Python tracker ___

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-09-09 Thread Chih-Hsuan Yen
Change by Chih-Hsuan Yen : -- pull_requests: +8578 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe:

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-08-30 Thread Chih-Hsuan Yen
Chih-Hsuan Yen added the comment: Could the fix be backported to 2.7 branch? Apparently on macOS 2.7 is also affected https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/2456 -- nosy: +yan12125 ___ Python tracker

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-24 Thread Barry A. Warsaw
Change by Barry A. Warsaw : -- resolution: -> fixed stage: patch review -> resolved status: open -> closed versions: +Python 3.7 ___ Python tracker

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-24 Thread Barry A. Warsaw
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: New changeset d69794f4df81de731cc66dc82136e28bee691e1e by Barry Warsaw (Bo Bayles) in branch '3.6': [3.6] bpo-32502: Discard 64-bit (and other invalid) hardware addresses (GH-5254) (#5290)

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-23 Thread bbayles
Change by bbayles : -- pull_requests: +5136 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-23 Thread Barry A. Warsaw
Barry A. Warsaw added the comment: New changeset 6b273f7f4056f8276f61a97c789d6bb4425e653c by Barry Warsaw (Bo Bayles) in branch 'master': bpo-32502: Discard 64-bit (and other invalid) hardware addresses (#5254)

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-22 Thread bbayles
Change by bbayles : -- nosy: +bbayles ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-20 Thread bbayles
Change by bbayles : -- keywords: +patch pull_requests: +5101 stage: needs patch -> patch review ___ Python tracker ___

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-12 Thread Andres Petralli
Andres Petralli added the comment: Re: rarity. There is at least one more person that ran into the same issue as seen in this report: https://github.com/Azure/azure-cli/issues/5184 -- ___ Python tracker

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-12 Thread Andres Petralli
Andres Petralli added the comment: Moving doesn't work, but even removing the firewire adapter (which was unused on my system), doesn't remove it from the output of ifconfig. I did however work around the issue by just patching up uuid in a suboptimal manner

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-12 Thread Ned Deily
Ned Deily added the comment: (As a workaround, you *might* be able to reorder the network interfaces in the System Preferences -> Network control panel.) -- ___ Python tracker

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-12 Thread Andres Petralli
Andres Petralli added the comment: This could be purely incidental to have shown up in 10.13, but yes, the problem comes from the fact that the first hardware ID in the list of devices happens to be an EUI-64 address with 64 bits now. This is the Firewire interface of

[issue32502] uuid1() fails if only 64-bit interface addresses are available

2018-01-12 Thread Ned Deily
Ned Deily added the comment: Thanks for your additional analysis. So, assuming I understand it correctly, the problem here is that there can be hardware configurations where the only (or first?) hardware addresses available exceed 48 bits. I'm not sure what might be