Improved Makefiles about libutp

[ghazel]

Ugh, I loathe Makefiles.

Could you submit this as a Github pull request?

[ghazel]

Oh, actually, what do you mean "system libtup"? libtup specifically says that is a bad idea. If a package manager has built libutp into a package they are asking for problems.

[ssuominengentoo]

Asking for problems? I don't have a problem diffing internal copy of libutp within transmission source tree to the libutp tree from here and adjusting the system package accordingly.

I'll try to make push req. today

[ghazel]

libutp is not considered stable enough to be included as a package in any package manager. It is designed to be compiled as part of your application.

[ssuominengentoo]

What made me want to package libutp separately is this bug:

http://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/5002

So instead of updating the security bug in multiple packages embedding libutp, I'd prefer to just patch libutp and automatically solve the others through it
What a mess :/

[ghazel]

That patch hasn't been applied to libutp yet. It's not a good idea to go patching all the apps with it, unless the developers test is specifically.

When libutp applies it, developers should test their app with the latest version of libutp.

[ssuominengentoo]

OK then, I've removed the separately packaged libutp from Gentoo's CVS repository
The patch doesn't really make any difference anymore, and I suppose proper autotools or cmake patch would be preferred anyways, so I'll just close this
Thanks for clarification (it's what I was afraid of)

[ghazel]

Most preferred would be a setsockopt to allow applications to use the LEDBAT congestion controller with TCP instead of an application-level UDP transport to begin with ;)