On 17/12/12 14:38, Thomas Hood wrote:
> @Brian Burch: What is your opinion now about this report, insofar as it
> affects ntp?
>
> ** Summary changed:
>
> - Certain services do not listen on 127.0.1.1
> + ntpd does not listen on 127.0.1.1, the IP address associated with the system hostname
>
I did a quick check on a 12.10 ubuntu system and it superficially looks
as if the problem is still valid.
ntpd is listening on 127.0.0.1:123 and 0.0.0.0:123 (among others)
ntpq -p works OK.
ntpq -p localhost works OK.
ntpq -p myhostname fails with "timeout, nothing received".
/etc/hosts has localhost defined 127.0.0.1 and myhostname defined as
127.0.1.1. Both of these hostnames can be pinged successfully, as you
would expect.
I don't want to be pedantic, because this bug doesn't affect me. It
simply leads to illogical behaviour from ntpd. If there was a way to
close it with a status "nobody cares", I wouldn't complain. On the other
hand, "invalid" doesn't feel right. What about "wontfix"?
On 17/12/12 14:38, Thomas Hood wrote:
> @Brian Burch: What is your opinion now about this report, insofar as it
> affects ntp?
>
> ** Summary changed:
>
> - Certain services do not listen on 127.0.1.1
> + ntpd does not listen on 127.0.1.1, the IP address associated with the system hostname
>
I did a quick check on a 12.10 ubuntu system and it superficially looks
as if the problem is still valid.
ntpd is listening on 127.0.0.1:123 and 0.0.0.0:123 (among others)
ntpq -p works OK.
ntpq -p localhost works OK.
ntpq -p myhostname fails with "timeout, nothing received".
/etc/hosts has localhost defined 127.0.0.1 and myhostname defined as
127.0.1.1. Both of these hostnames can be pinged successfully, as you
would expect.
I don't want to be pedantic, because this bug doesn't affect me. It
simply leads to illogical behaviour from ntpd. If there was a way to
close it with a status "nobody cares", I wouldn't complain. On the other
hand, "invalid" doesn't feel right. What about "wontfix"?
Brian