Bug #12421: Please backport r53816, r53817

• Status: Closed
• Assignee: -
• Target version: -
• ruby -v: ruby 2.0.0p598 (2014-11-13) [x86_64-linux]
• Backport: 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN

[vo.x (Vit Ondruch)]

Since there was request to fix this issue on RHEL7 [1], which ships Ruby 2.0.0 and the fix was applied just to trunk, I expect that all other supported Ruby versions suffer this issue as well as Ruby 2.0, therefore it would be nice to have this backported (although this might be considered feature, not a bug).

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1300433

[vo.x (Vit Ondruch)]

• Subject changed from Plase backport r53816 (no_proxy with whitespaces and leading dots) to Plase backport r53816, 53817

[vo.x (Vit Ondruch)]

• Subject changed from Plase backport r53816, 53817 to Plase backport r53816, r53817

[vo.x (Vit Ondruch)]

• Related to Feature #12062: supporting CIDR in ENV["no_proxy"] added

[vo.x (Vit Ondruch)]

• Related to Feature #8317: URI: no_proxy with whitespaces and leading dots. added

[pvalena (Pavel Valena)]

• Subject changed from Plase backport r53816, r53817 to Please backport r53816, r53817

[darix (Marcus Rückert)]

can we get a decision about this backport?

[usa (Usaku NAKAMURA)]

• About 2.0.0, we will never backport any patches because it has already reached at end-of-life.
• About 2.1, it has no chance to backport any features because it's in security only maintenance phase.
• About 2.2, in principle, feature changes are not backported. If someone persuade us (especially, me) to understand that this is a spec bug, I'll backport it.
• About 2.3, same as 2.2.

[nagachika (Tomoyuki Chikanaga)]

In my opinion r53816 might be considered as spec fix but r53817 was feature change, even though there's no entry in NEWS file.
usa san how do you judge this?

[usa (Usaku NAKAMURA)]

Tomoyuki Chikanaga wrote:

usa san how do you judge this?

I agreed with you.

[darix (Marcus Rückert)]

backporting those fixes would make ruby compatible with a syntax handled by other tools. otherwise it means people need to take special care for ruby and things like that are often used against ruby later on.

also do you see any potential breakages coming from this backport?

[Obfuscoder (Kai Lehmann)]

I do not consider this a feature change but a bug fix. According to wget specification of the no_proxy environment variable, leading dots are supposed to be supported. I would even argue that using leading dots in the no_proxy list is the de facto standard way to specify domain parts. Our build infrastructure is failing due to this issue as our admins insist on setting the no_proxy environment variable like it is defined by wget documentation.

Furthermore we do not have this issue when using JRuby 1.7.x or MRI 1.9.3. So in my opinion this is a regression.

To be clear: I don't care about r53817 which is a feature. I only care about r53816 and the spec fix for leading dots.

[jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)]

• Status changed from Open to Closed