Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 169471
Review Request: gtk-gnutella - GUI based Gnutella Client
Last modified: 2012-02-13 09:48:29 EST
Spec Url: http://dmitry.butskoy.name/gtk-gnutella/gtk-gnutella.spec
SRPM Url: http://dmitry.butskoy.name/gtk-gnutella/gtk-gnutella-0.95.4-1.src.rpm
Gtk-Gnutella is a GUI based Gnutella p2p servent. It's a fully featured
servent designed to share any type of file. Gtk-gnutella implements
compressed gnutella net connections, ultrapeer and leaf nodes and uses
Passive/Active Remote Queueing (PARQ), and other modern gnutella network
* No downloadable source. Please give the full URL in the Source tag.
* rpmlint of gtk-gnutella: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/gtk-gnutella 0555
P2P software is not included in ForbiddenItems (and is not illegal in itself
actually), but I'd like to get clearance from Legal (as asked in bug 169604)
I already asked about it a little, see
Source and exec-perms: done.
I've had a look at the included URLs in gwcache.boot, and none contain obvious
Review for release 1:
* RPM name is OK
* Source gtk-gnutella-0.95.4.tar.bz2 is the same as upstream
* This is the latest version
* Builds fine in mock
* rpmlint of gtk-gnutella looks OK
* File list of gtk-gnutella looks OK
* Works fine.
How did you check GWebCache contents? I believe it is impossible to
ensure that they do not reference any servents with illegal content.
IMO, it would be better no just ship the software and not any
> How did you check GWebCache contents ?
I just opened the URLs in a browser and had a very quick look at them. But if
gtk-gnutella can work without the gwcache.boot file, it would be better to
remove it, I agree
/usr/share/gtk-gnutella/gwcache.boot actually points to some http urls. It does
not point directly to any servents with contents. These urls are not intended
for any content providing. I believe that Gnutella knows all the legal issues
and avoids them...
IMHO, some similar situation was "links to fedorafaq.org site", which I saw
recently somewhere in mailing lists. Fedora can points to "fedorafaq" site, just
saying nothing particularly about what the users can find there. (They can find
there links to soft with legal issues).
May be I should just check carefully all the gwcache.boot links (and do it on
each package update)? But, IMHO, upstream already should do it...
Anyway, without initial gwcache, the program appears to be much less usable.
I've checked out it once again, for me nothing illegal at the urls specified.
Yes, they indirectly specify some servents, but it is "dynamic" data (who is
currently run etc.), therefore we cannot check them in general. And I believe
the presumption of innocence operates in this context...
some more doubts?
I've already committed and built gtk-gnutella before you had reopened this
bugzilla ticket. Now it has appeared at the download site. Therefore I close
If any doubts will appear later, open a new bugzilla ticket for this package
...and upstream's comment here:
Package Change Request
Package Name: gtk-gnutella
New Branches: el6
Git done (by process-git-requests).