Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763 --- Comment #5 from Adam Goode <adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-23 01:25:29 EST --- Hmm. I think the correct thing to do is to get the necessary changes merged back into luasocket. I am not sure how easy it would be to get a new release of luasocket with these changes, there hasn't been a release in a while. Also, I am not sure how safe it would be for luasec to require "socket.core", because that would really tie luasec to the internals of the C interfaces. (It would probably be ok.) It looks like only a tiny amount of changes would be necessary. io.h, socket.h, usocket.c? Possibly it would make sense to merge luasocket and luasec together into one package at some point. luasocket is lacking IPv6, and this would require a new luasocket, so maybe it could just include luasec all together. Practially speaking, if we want to move forward with luasec and prosody in Fedora soon, probably we should try to get a FESCO exemption for luasec's duplicate code from luasocket and then get a new luasocket/luasec released upstream that fixes these problems. Then IPv6 can be next. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review