https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
Bug ID: 1331825 Summary: perl-Net-Server should depend on perl-IO-Socket-INET6 Product: Fedora EPEL Version: epel7 Component: perl-Net-Server Assignee: lkundrak@v3.sk Reporter: roy@karlsbakk.net QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: kevin@scrye.com, lkundrak@v3.sk, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Description of problem:
With systems like munin-node, it's unable to listen to IPv6 unless perl-IO-Socket-INET6 is installed manually. There really isn't a good reason to keep this out, since IPv6 is getting rather common these days
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Current RHEL/CentOS 7 as of 2016-04-29
How reproducible:
Every time
Steps to Reproduce: 1. Try to bind to IPv6 with perl-Net-Server 2. 3.
Actual results: Fails
Expected results: Succeeds
Additional info:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |psabata@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com --- (In reply to Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk from comment #0)
There really isn't a good reason to keep this out, since IPv6 is getting rather common these days
IPv6 support in this package is optional and it's documented. By requiring it you force it onto users who might not want it, for whatever reasons. Note that behavior would also be different from upstream.
The dependency could be expressed with `Recommends', however, I'm not sure whether this is supported in EPEL7.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1395714
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
--- Comment #2 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- IPv6 support by default is required by the packaging guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Networking_Support
There is nothing in EPEL-specific guidelines to the contrary, so the above applies for EPEL as well. Please add the missing Requires.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
--- Comment #3 from Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk roy@karlsbakk.net --- I see no reason for holding back on this one. IPv6 is essensial these days.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
--- Comment #4 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- If there's no reply within a week, I will fix this myself (as provenpackager).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(lkundrak@v3.sk)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
--- Comment #5 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- Created attachment 1286376 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1286376&action=edit Patch backporting the change from master.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ppisar@redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(ppisar@redhat.com | |)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(psabata@redhat.co | |m)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
--- Comment #6 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com --- Nothing has changed about my previous comment. IPv6 support in this package is optional. If you want support for it, you can always install IO::Socket::INET6. Optionally.
Adding a hard dependency on it forces it onto people who don't need it and differs from upstream behavior.
If you believe Net::Server users shouldn't have a choice in this matter, the best way would be discussing it with upstream. The package could then follow upstream decision.
I'm not against IPv6, far from it. Just stating the facts.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(lkundrak@v3.sk) | |needinfo?(ppisar@redhat.com | |) | |needinfo?(psabata@redhat.co | |m) |
--- Comment #7 from Petr Pisar ppisar@redhat.com --- I'm also against hard coding the dependency. If there is something to be changed in this package regardgin IPv6 support, then it is replacing IO::Socket::INET and IO::Socket::INET6 with IO::Socket::IP. But that's definitely a job for the upstream.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
--- Comment #8 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #6)
Nothing has changed about my previous comment. IPv6 support in this package is optional. If you want support for it, you can always install IO::Socket::INET6. Optionally.
Adding a hard dependency on it forces it onto people who don't need it and differs from upstream behavior.
That's a decision that Fedora (and EPEL) made already: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Networking_Support [...] If an application contains native and stable support for both IPv4 and IPv6, and support for IPv6 does not negatively affect IPv4 then both MUST be enabled in the Fedora package.
IPv6 is NOT optional unless it breaks IPv4 usage. Please either point to a bug report saying that installing IO::Socket::INET6 breaks IPv4 connectivity in Net::Server or add the dependency as required.
If you believe Net::Server users shouldn't have a choice in this matter, the best way would be discussing it with upstream. The package could then follow upstream decision.
If you believe Net::Server users should have a choice in this matter then the best way would be to propose making IPv6 optional in the Fedora (or EPEL) Packaging Guidelines. The package could then follow the Packaging Guidelines.
I'm not against IPv6, far from it. Just stating the facts.
As am I.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
--- Comment #9 from Petr Šabata psabata@redhat.com --- (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #8)
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #6)
Nothing has changed about my previous comment. IPv6 support in this package is optional. If you want support for it, you can always install IO::Socket::INET6. Optionally.
Adding a hard dependency on it forces it onto people who don't need it and differs from upstream behavior.
That's a decision that Fedora (and EPEL) made already: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Networking_Support [...] If an application contains native and stable support for both IPv4 and IPv6, and support for IPv6 does not negatively affect IPv4 then both MUST be enabled in the Fedora package.
Okay, I admit I didn't know about or remember this rule -- there's nothing to discuss then. Although you might want to change the wording as it explicitly says "in the Fedora package".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331825
--- Comment #10 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski dominik@greysector.net --- (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #9)
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #8)
[...]
That's a decision that Fedora (and EPEL) made already: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Networking_Support [...] If an application contains native and stable support for both IPv4 and IPv6, and support for IPv6 does not negatively affect IPv4 then both MUST be enabled in the Fedora package.
Okay, I admit I didn't know about or remember this rule -- there's nothing to discuss then.
Thank you.
Although you might want to change the wording as it explicitly says "in the Fedora package".
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_for_EPEL
Packaging for EPEL
For the most part, these guidelines and the application-specific guidelines below cover packaging for both Fedora and EPEL. However, there are necessarily some differences. When packaging for EPEL, please also consult the EPEL packaging guidelines for additional information.
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org