[#119132] Segfault using ruby C on MacOS (Intel Catalina and M2 Sonoma) — "martin.kufner--- via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
Hey guys,
4 messages
2024/09/12
[#119133] Re: Segfault using ruby C on MacOS (Intel Catalina and M2 Sonoma)
— "martin.kufner--- via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
2024/09/12
I just saw, that the #includes dont show up in the c file ...
[#119145] [Ruby master Misc#20728] Propose Eileen Uchitelle as a core committer — "kddnewton (Kevin Newton) via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
Issue #20728 has been reported by kddnewton (Kevin Newton).
14 messages
2024/09/12
[#119312] [Ruby master Bug#20762] `make test-basic` with -DRGENGC_FORCE_MAJOR_GC is always failure — "hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
Issue #20762 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
6 messages
2024/09/27
[ruby-core:119080] [Ruby master Feature#20673] Enable native SOCKS support by default
From:
"nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) via ruby-core" <ruby-core@...>
Date:
2024-09-06 03:45:59 UTC
List:
ruby-core #119080
Issue #20673 has been updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada). As for the current SOCKS support at least, if the necessary library and header are found `socket.so` uses SOCKS functions instead of standard socket functions, and the built `socket.so` cannot be loaded where SOCKS library is not installed. This means "native SOCKS support enabled by default" requires platforms to support it (by default or optionally). I looked for how to install SOCKS library/headers using package managers, but couldn't find it in Ubuntu, MacPorts, HomeBrew and vcpkg at least. An alternative I thought out is to make `SOCKSSocket` class a separate extension library for libraries/users who want to use SOCKS. MatzFan (Brian Cohen) wrote in #note-3: > If Ruby developers feel that SOCKS support is not something the core language should provide, an alternative may be to make the relevant parts of the various network API's public (i.e. for each protocol that can be used with SOCKS). This way `socksify` or another library can be used to extend the language to provide SOCKS support properly, for those who require it. It sounds a good way. Could you make a draft? ---------------------------------------- Feature #20673: Enable native SOCKS support by default https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/20673#change-109664 * Author: MatzFan (Brian Cohen) * Status: Open ---------------------------------------- I'd like to see future Rubies have native SOCKS support enabled by default. Currently Rubies must be compiled with the `--enable-socks=true` option in order to provide access to the `SOCKSSocket` class, through which network connections may be made via the SOCKS protocol. My proposal is simply to deprecate the `--enable-socks` option IFO of SOCKS support being enabled by default. Use cases: To the best of my knowledge, the most commonly used SOCKS proxies are [Dante](https://www.inet.no/dante/) and [Tor](https://torproject.org). I know little of the former, but the latter is used as an anonymity tool. For example, the Tor Browser (based on Firefox) is built on the `tor` SOCKS proxy. Users wishing to make requests through the SOCKS protocol (through one of these proxies or otherwise) must compile their own Ruby with SOCKS enabled, or install Dante/Tor and make requests through these via another tool - e.g. a Selenium-driven browser, suitably configured. Alternatively, a lower level library like `cURL` can be utilized. Discussion: Most users do not build their own Rubies, but instead use the standard Rubies available from Ruby managers like `rvm` or `rbenv` (in both production and CI environments). Users needing to use the SOCKS protocol natively with one of these Rubies are presently reliant on the [socksify](https://rubygems.org/gems/socksify) Ruby gem (> 60M downloads). Declaration: I am the gem's current maintainer. The gem was originally built to provide native SOCKS support to users of these 'standard' Rubies via patches to the `Net/HTTP` and other Ruby core libraries. The current gem patches the private method `Net::HTTP#connect` in order to achieve this. This is a brittle and highly undesirable state of affairs and all code built using `socksify` is of course subject to breakage with each new Ruby release. It is difficult to gauge the exact nature and extent of the user need, but of the 60M Socksify downloads 20M have taken place is the last few years since I became maintainer. I consider t his a significant user base. Many other languages provide native SOCKS support - e.g. Python has [PySocks](https://pypi.org/project/PySocks/). Fundamentally, is there any reason NOT to enable SOCKS support - would it break anything? I'd dearly like to retire the Socksify 'hack' in due course and see Ruby join the list of languages that offer SOCKS support by default - in all future Rubies. Many thanks for your consideration. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ ______________________________________________ ruby-core mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] ruby-core info -- https://ml.ruby-lang.org/mailman3/lists/ruby-core.ml.ruby-lang.org/