Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

type Unix.sockaddr does not express IPv6 addresses with zone info #6479

Closed
vicuna opened this issue Jul 6, 2014 · 3 comments
Closed

type Unix.sockaddr does not express IPv6 addresses with zone info #6479

vicuna opened this issue Jul 6, 2014 · 3 comments

Comments

@vicuna
Copy link

vicuna commented Jul 6, 2014

Original bug ID: 6479
Reporter: vbmithr
Status: acknowledged (set by @damiendoligez on 2014-07-16T14:11:45Z)
Resolution: open
Priority: normal
Severity: feature
Version: 4.02.0+beta1 / +rc1
Category: otherlibs
Monitored by: @hcarty

Bug description

Currently, it is not possible to connect to link-local IPv6 address using the Unix module. This should be possible.

@github-actions
Copy link

This issue has been open one year with no activity. Consequently, it is being marked with the "stale" label. What this means is that the issue will be automatically closed in 30 days unless more comments are added or the "stale" label is removed. Comments that provide new information on the issue are especially welcome: is it still reproducible? did it appear in other contexts? how critical is it? etc.

@cfcs
Copy link

cfcs commented Apr 10, 2023

should this be reopened or has it been fixed?

@gasche
Copy link
Member

gasche commented Apr 11, 2023

To my knowledge the feature was never implemented.

If no one reacted when the annoying bot sent a ping, we can assume that none of the people reading the bugtracker at the time were motivated enough to implement this feature request. There is little value in keeping the feature request open for years if no one is planning to work on it, so leaving it close is reasonable. Anyone is of course welcome to jump in and contribute the feature if they wish to, or to at least express interest and restart the discussion in the present issue.

It should have been closed as a "won't fix" issue rather than a "solved" issue, but the bot apparently was written before Github introduced this distinction and uses the wrong category when closing.

@gasche gasche closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Apr 11, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants