Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: rb_libtorrent - A C++ BitTorrent library aiming to be the best alternative Alias: rb_libtorrent https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=221372 ------- Additional Comments From bugs.michael@xxxxxxx 2007-01-17 11:43 EST ------- Re-check "License:" as it is _not_ GPL. > ## Uses the same naming schema for libraries/directories :( > Conflicts: libtorrent IMO this conflict is unacceptable. Actually, "libtorrent" is libtorrent.so.9, this one is libtorrent.so.0, and "libtorrent-devel" uses /usr/include/torrent/ while this one uses /usr/include/libtorrent/. So, theoretically they could even co-exist at this point of time, provided that they got some love from upstream. But so far, the rename is half-hearted. > %files > %{_bindir}/client_test > %{_bindir}/simple_client For a library package and the limited /usr/bin namespace, these two file names are far too generic. They ought to be moved or renamed. The filenames /usr/bin/dump_torrent and /usr/bin/make_torrent are quite generic, too. Upstream is highly encouraged to choose an own namespace. > %files devel > %doc COPYING docs/* The file COPYING is included in the main package already. > %{_libdir}/pkgconfig/libtorrent.pc This file is tuned for static linking, unfortunately, in that it links libraries which libtorrent.so.0 is linked against already. > Requires: openssl-devel Where do you see this requirement? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review