shadowsocks-libev: drop the package

[yousong]

Maintainer: me
Compile tested: N/A
Run tested: N/A

Description:

The upstream project is declared as bugfix-only and received no update for about 2 years. The developement focus there has shifted. It does not compile with current openwrt main branch.

[yousong]

Related links

• shadowsocks-libev: configure: error: MBEDTLS_CIPHER_MODE_CFB required #24168
• shadowsocks-libev：Fix in 'mbedtls 3.6.0 ver' compilation failure issue #24530
• shadowsocks-libev: support cipher none #23555
• shadowsocks-libev: convert to PCRE2 #22356
• shadowsocks-libev: patch to remove dependency on pcre #22355

[msdos03]

I think we shouldn't remove it, because this is the most lightweight implement of shadowsocks. Rust version of it takes up to 4 times more RAM. For many routers, this is important. And we have solution to the compilation problem now.

[yousong]

I think we shouldn't remove it, because this is the most lightweight implement of shadowsocks. Rust version of it takes up to 4 times more RAM. For many routers, this is important. And we have solution to the compilation problem now.

OpenWrt as a downstream project is not to act as a fork of shadowsocks-libev. Like said in the description, the dev efforts of shadowsocks community has shifted. Shadowsocks-libev is now a stale project.

[msdos03]

@yousong I think before shadowsocks-rust is added to packages, shadowsocks-libev should be reserved. It's common to add dependency fix patch to those projects that are not willing to do that. This package is still widely used.
The community is still paying effort on this package, so at least keep it until nobody want to fix it.

[zxlhhyccc]

@yousong I agree @msdos03 viewpoint. whether a project is abandoned should consider whether it is actually used by users. For now, this software is still being used by a large number of people, including the server side. So I wouldn't recommend abandoning the project. Unless it's no longer maintained or obsolete. And now that the patch suitable for the main branch has been submitted, it should not be abandoned.

[BKPepe]

This one should be merged I agree with @yousong . This is for the master branch. We talked about it one year ago in #22356 (comment) . Users should switch to shadowsocks-rust if possible.

[msdos03]

This one should be merged I agree with @yousong . This is for the master branch. We talked about it one year ago in #22356 (comment) . Users should switch to shadowsocks-rust if possible.

Until now, shadowsocks-rust still haven't been added.

[BKPepe]

There was PR #22477

[zxlhhyccc]

@BKPepe shadowsocks-rust After compiling, it takes up a large space, and the routing of small flash memory is basically unusable. So I think shadowsocks-libev should be retained in order to take care of routing of small flash memory.

[msdos03]

There was PR #22477

But it still haven't been merged. And indeed, shadowsocks-rust have very large binary size (more than 5MB) and RAM consumption (more than 10MB) compared to libev. For routers, these are important.

[zxlhhyccc]

@BKPepe @yousong Retention strongly recommended shadowsocks-libev. moreover，the currently active branch shadowsocks-rust has deprecated tcp fast open.

[1715173329]

The upstream has abandoned libev port and does not accept PRs anymore, there are no active forks too, so it's just dead.

The community is still paying effort on this package, so at least keep it until nobody want to fix it.

As metioned above, we have discussed removing this package several times, but basically nobody cares.
Maintaining a deprecated (now broken) stuff is really painful, and yousong seems to be too busy to have much effort to maintain it.
In this case, removing it is definitely a better choice rather than wait a (maybe nonexistent) random person to fix it.

Rust version of it takes up to 4 times more RAM. For many routers, this is important.

I don't think it's that "important". It's 2024, any modern routers should have at least 256 MB RAM, it's pretty enouth for ss-rust and other daemons. Not to mention there are even a certain number of people running clash on mt7621.
For those old devices with limited performance, using old branches is a better option.

[WeihanLi]

Should the document be updated to reflect this change, currently, the links in the docs page would lead to 404 due to this remove
docs page link: https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/services/proxy/shadowsocks

[yousong]

Should the document be updated to reflect this change, currently, the links in the docs page would lead to 404 due to this remove docs page link: https://openwrt.org/docs/guide-user/services/proxy/shadowsocks

I just added a note describing the drop done here and updated links there to point to the openwrt-23.05 branch.

[zdj0925]

现在有什么推荐的替代品吗？体积小、快速、占用内存小。

[WeihanLi]

现在有什么推荐的替代品吗？体积小、快速、占用内存小。

同问 v2ray 安装包有点大，路由器装不了 😂

[yousong]

I am going to lock the session here. Please open a new issue or forum post for further discussions.

Show your respects guys. This is a open place where English is the preferred lang. Not that we are all native or master speakers of that lang, but that other people can join.