> > if not, then probably this patch indeed could be safely
> > deapplied I guess ;-)
> It might be better to do:
> --- channels.c~ 2007-03-04 21:01:58.000000000 +0000
> +++ channels.c 2007-03-06 01:34:03.000000000 +0000
> @@ -2807,8 +2807,10 @@
> debug2("bind port %d: %.100s", port,
> strerror(errno));
> close(sock);
> +#ifndef IPV6_V6ONLY
> if (ai->ai_next)
> continue;
> +#endif
> for (n = 0; n < num_socks; n++) {
> close(socks[n]);
> -- END --
> I expect this would be acceptable to upstream too.
Indeed that sounds like a clean and minimally intrusive solution (which
I confirm to work ;-) FWIW )
--
Yaroslav Halchenko
Research Assistant, Psychology Department, Rutgers-Newark
Student Ph.D. @ CS Dept. NJIT
Office: (973) 353-5440x263 | FWD: 82823 | Fax: (973) 353-1171
101 Warren Str, Smith Hall, Rm 4-105, Newark NJ 07102
WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
