Summary: | ucspi-tcp tcpserver: unable to figure out IP address for 0.0.0.0 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Linux | Reporter: | Nuitari <nuitari> |
Component: | [OLD] Server | Assignee: | Qmail Team (OBSOLETE) <qmail-bugs+disabled> |
Status: | RESOLVED WORKSFORME | ||
Severity: | critical | CC: | gentoo-bugs, vapier |
Priority: | High | Keywords: | NeedPatch |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | AMD64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
Nuitari
2005-04-27 00:15:01 UTC
tcpserver refers to /etc/dnsrewrite, not glibc are you sure your dns is setup properly ? i run qmail on a bunch of machines and ive never seen that error / had this problem what does `ping 0.0.0.0` show ? hammer ~ # ping 0.0.0.0 PING 0.0.0.0 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.054 ms 64 bytes from 127.0.0.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.024 ms --- 0.0.0.0 ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1000ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.024/0.039/0.054/0.015 ms Have you tried updating ucspi-tcp. Though as I said, creating an empty /etc/dnsrewrite worked However there is no indication that this is needed for ucspi to work. ucspi-tcp-0.88-r10 has been in portage for a few months now and yes i've been using that without issue if you downgrade to 0.88-r9 or 0.88-r8 and restrat svscan, does this error still occur ? Yes it still happens. err hrm, i can reproduce this, but just on my glibc-2.3.5 machines ;) i'll debug it some more actually, i can reproduce this just fine if i remove 'search' lines from /etc/resolv.conf ... for example, my resolv.conf just says: nameserver 192.168.0.1 if i just do `echo search >> /etc/resolv.conf`, tcpserver starts working again No response in a long time. Closing as WFM. As a followup comment on this, I just ran into it on an amd64 box as well. It occured with any of the -O[23s] optimization flags, but not with -O1. I didn't test the /etc/dnsrewrite or search line for resolv.conf ideas, but I just changed the ebuild to force -O1 as a more global solution. so why did you comment on a closed bug rather than re-opening or filing a new one vapier: because I already fixed the problem before I found this bug - it was only somebody else pointing this one out to me that I thought it worth leaving a comment. forcing building at -O1 is not a fix |