Hi,

I first saw this message using 1.8.4rc3:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: No loopback interface was found. This can cause problems
when we spawn processes as they are likely to be unable to connect
back to their host daemon. Sadly, it may take awhile for the connect
attempt to fail, so you may experience a significant hang time.

You may wish to ctrl-c out of your job and activate loopback support
on at least one interface before trying again.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have compiled it in "debug" mode... is it the problem?

...but I think I do have a loopback on my host:

ifconfig -a

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:25:90:0D:A5:38
          inet addr:132.203.7.22  Bcast:132.203.7.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          inet6 addr: fe80::225:90ff:fe0d:a538/64 Scope:Link
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:49080380 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:67526463 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
RX bytes:35710440484 (34056.1 Mb) TX bytes:64050625687 (61083.4 Mb)
          Interrupt:16 Memory:faee0000-faf00000

eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:25:90:0D:A5:39
          BROADCAST MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
          Interrupt:17 Memory:fafe0000-fb000000

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:65536  Metric:1
          RX packets:3089696 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:3089696 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
          RX bytes:8421008033 (8030.8 Mb)  TX bytes:8421008033 (8030.8 Mb)

Is that message erroneous?

Thanks,

Eric

Reply via email to