No it would only eliminate the address shortage part of the problem. There are more significant changes that really are long due to be made which are also addressed by IPv6. The reasoning is: don't upgrade to half a solution when you know you really must do another upgrade soon after, the cost is in the breaking upgrade not in the amount of changes.
That is not to say that IPv6 is the holy grail, it's design by committee and as such is probably too different on one front and not different enough on another. And of course it's trial by jury with a terribly large jury, so there is probably not one protocol (now or ever) that would meet all the demands.