Sun, 21 Aug 2016 22:02:24 +0200 Landry Breuil
> That's just pure beauty. Wait. I meant horror :)
Will Ruby system application developers be left behind without latest
improvements in infrastructure under language libraries? Fall behind
Python? Reassign resources to modern development practices?
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:17:59AM -0500, joshua stein wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 20:30:22 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > >There are various ways we can go.
> > >
> > >One is as awolk@ has done in his diff, making all W|X-needing ruby
> > >modules work.
> > >
> > >The other is to mark theruby
On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 at 20:30:22 -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >There are various ways we can go.
> >
> >One is as awolk@ has done in his diff, making all W|X-needing ruby
> >modules work.
> >
> >The other is to mark therubyracer broken with an explanation, so
> >people who need it can build a speci
> This is extra hassle for users but does have an upside, we are more
> likely to find out about other extensions that require W|X if they crash
> when they fail. (Referring back to python, I never would have guessed
> that py-cryptography would be hit by this, so in a way it's good that
> it was f
>On 2016/08/17 12:14, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> > I'm CC'ing the port maintainer and adding my local patch. Should we mark
>> > the
>> > binaries as wxneeded and if yes how do we handle configure failing in
>> > default
>> > pobj location setup?
>>
>> I suspect ports folk will need to recipe/recon
On 2016/08/17 12:14, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > I'm CC'ing the port maintainer and adding my local patch. Should we mark the
> > binaries as wxneeded and if yes how do we handle configure failing in
> > default
> > pobj location setup?
>
> I suspect ports folk will need to recipe/reconfigure their
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:35:30AM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> On 08/17 08:03, Adam Wolk wrote:
> > Hi ports@,
> >
> > I bumped my snapshot yesterday (yeah it was long coming) and after the
> > upgrade
> > my rails app started crashing. It's served by nginx in this specific case
> > but
> > tha
> I'm on the fence about this. Basically, you are asking all users of ruby to
> accept additional insecurity, because you want to use an extension that most
> users of ruby are not using.
Ruby upstream inadvertently created that situation by participating in
a culture of runtime use of W^X violat
On 08/17 08:03, Adam Wolk wrote:
> Hi ports@,
>
> I bumped my snapshot yesterday (yeah it was long coming) and after the upgrade
> my rails app started crashing. It's served by nginx in this specific case but
> that doesn't matter for this specific issue.
>
> The app loads the ruby racer gem whic
> I'm CC'ing the port maintainer and adding my local patch. Should we mark the
> binaries as wxneeded and if yes how do we handle configure failing in default
> pobj location setup?
I suspect ports folk will need to recipe/reconfigure their machines to
have wxallowed on /usr/pobj.
I hope you all
Hi ports@,
I bumped my snapshot yesterday (yeah it was long coming) and after the upgrade
my rails app started crashing. It's served by nginx in this specific case but
that doesn't matter for this specific issue.
The app loads the ruby racer gem which is a binding to v8 which obviously
contains a
11 matches
Mail list logo
