Subject: Bug#916446: netcfg: please statically define ip4-localhost (mirroring ip6-localhost)

From: Jonathan Dowland <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:19:16 +0000

Package: netcfg
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch

Patch at https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/merge_requests/4

This mirrors the corresponding static hostname that is defined for
IPv6:

> # The following lines are desirable for IPv6 capable hosts
> ::1     localhost ip6-localhost ip6-loopback

These lines exist because there are some situations where you can only
conveniently specify a hostname but you wish to force a particular protocol.
For the same reason "ip4-localhost" is useful.

I was inspired to request this and write the patch because I hit this exact
situation with some software I am debugging.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.5
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (990, 'stable'), (500, 'stable-debug'), (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386

Kernel: Linux 4.17.0-0.bpo.1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=en_GB:en (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

---

From: Jonathan Dowland <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 10:52:36 +0100

Hi,

>Patch at https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/merge_requests/4

I got a notification that someone asked a question on the Merge Request
and that reminded me of this, two years later.

I think this would still be useful, and the commit still applies cleanly
to today's netcfg `master` branch. Could someone please consider this?
Here are two other people who have requested the same thing over the
years:
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=858011;msg=5>,
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=427067#5>.

Thanks,

-- 
👱🏻	Jonathan Dowland
✎	 [email-masked]
🔗	https://jmtd.net

---

From: Cyril Brulebois <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:13:57 +0200

Hi Jonathan,

> <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=427067#5>.

I don't think we should have different things done by d-i (via netcfg)
and by netbase (via its postinst). The latter doesn't seem to do that at
the moment?

Cheers,
-- 
Cyril Brulebois ([email-masked])            <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant