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 Description: 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 features.
Needs work: * 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 https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-September/msg01571.html
Source and exec-perms: done.
I've had a look at the included URLs in gwcache.boot, and none contain obvious illegal material. 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. APPROVED
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 bootstrapping URLs.
> 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... Aurelien, Michael, some more doubts?
Aurelien, 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 here again. If any doubts will appear later, open a new bugzilla ticket for this package usual way.
...and upstream's comment here: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=8422691&forum_id=5942
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: gtk-gnutella New Branches: el6 Owners: buc
Git done (by process-git-requests).