Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 232294 - system-config-network, 'save' erases local loopback entry
Summary: system-config-network, 'save' erases local loopback entry
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: system-config-network
Version: 6
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Harald Hoyer
QA Contact:
Whiteboard: bzcl34nup
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-03-14 19:12 UTC by Jonathan Rawle
Modified: 2008-05-06 19:21 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-05-06 19:21:14 UTC

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jonathan Rawle 2007-03-14 19:12:57 UTC
This bug, as described in the recently closed bug #166855, is still present in
FC6. After changing network settings, the loopback entry is removed from
/etc/hosts. This causes the system to hang when attempting to start sendmail on
next reboot.

Comment 1 Jeroen Janssen 2007-04-06 11:39:33 UTC
In FC6 both an IPV4 and IPV6 localhost entry is present in /etc/hosts.

When saving from system-config-network, the first localhost entry in /etc/hosts
is removed from the file (only the last localhost entry is preserved).

Since anaconda writes the IPV6 localhost entry last in the hosts file, this
means you end up with a hosts file containing only the IPV6 localhost entry.

Comment 2 Jeroen Janssen 2007-04-06 11:57:40 UTC
It seems this IPV4/IPV6 problem is due to the way rhpl.Conf.ConfFHosts works:

class ConfFHosts(Conf):
    # for /etc/hosts
    # implements a dictionary keyed by Hostname, with values
    # consisting of a list: [ IP-Adress, [list, of, nicknames] ]

As a result, multiple entries for localhost (, ::1) will result in only
the last being preserved in the dictionary.

Should I file a seperate bug for this?

Comment 3 Bug Zapper 2008-04-04 06:31:51 UTC
Fedora apologizes that these issues have not been resolved yet. We're
sorry it's taken so long for your bug to be properly triaged and acted
on. We appreciate the time you took to report this issue and want to
make sure no important bugs slip through the cracks.

If you're currently running a version of Fedora Core between 1 and 6,
please note that Fedora no longer maintains these releases. We strongly
encourage you to upgrade to a current Fedora release. In order to
refocus our efforts as a project we are flagging all of the open bugs
for releases which are no longer maintained and closing them.

If this bug is still open against Fedora Core 1 through 6, thirty days
from now, it will be closed 'WONTFIX'. If you can reporduce this bug in
the latest Fedora version, please change to the respective version. If
you are unable to do this, please add a comment to this bug requesting
the change.

Thanks for your help, and we apologize again that we haven't handled
these issues to this point.

The process we are following is outlined here:

We will be following the process here: to ensure this
doesn't happen again.

And if you'd like to join the bug triage team to help make things
better, check out

Comment 4 Bug Zapper 2008-05-06 19:21:13 UTC
This bug is open for a Fedora version that is no longer maintained and
will not be fixed by Fedora. Therefore we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen thus bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.