Cameron Patrick wrote: > Blars Blarson wrote: > | Suck currently is linked with socks4. I've had an informal request > | that I drop socks support, since the requester beleives it is > | obsolete. I've never used socks myself, and don't anticipate ever > | doing so. > [...] > I'd be inclined to drop socks support from suck, and let anyone who > really needs socks use the socksify wrapper. I use socks at work since it is not otherwise connected to the network. I also use the dante-client 'socksify' methodology. It works very well. I would test that socksify works as an alternative to having it compiled in directly. It might not. Applications must be linked dynamically in order to user the socksify method. Therefore most do work but there are the occasional ones that do not. If it is functional then that seems the best way to go to simplify things. Since it previously had socks built in I would document this in your README or changelog saying that it was changed and pointing to the external dante-client as an available option. Users that use SOCKS generally know who they are (and feel deprived at not having a real network connection and needing to use something like socks, sigh) and already know how to run socksified applications. Users of 'suck' would seem to fall into the more experienced camp and would know how to run socksified applications if they needed them. Bob
Attachment:
pgp0RwujYfaO9.pgp
Description: PGP signature