Hi Vincent, Simon, On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 09:24:00AM +0100, Vincent Bernat wrote: > I don't think this is a good use of time to fix builds broken because > there is no IPv4 loopback. On Fri, Dec 01, 2023 at 11:30:50AM +0000, Simon McVittie wrote: > I agree that we should consider a working 127.0.0.1 to be "part of the > API" that packages (and in particular their test-suites) can assume, > even if there is no other IPv4 connectivity. I'd liket to offer a different perspective: complete IPv4 stack removal including loopback addressing is inevitable even if still a fair way off, it's a good idea to get an early start here. It's valuable for us to give upstreams backpressure on having legacy IP requirements in the package build process of all places and I don't think this is onerous requirement, it's just exposing holes in IPv6 support that should really be there already. Requiring support for IPv6 singlestack at runtime is a whole different beast ofc, but are we really seeing an insurmountable number of issues due to build time problems only? Either way I'd be happy to help get issues like this fixed upstream. --Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature