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=581220 Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-15 02:37:50 EDT --- I'm not taking it for formal review for now, just got a few comments here. > License: GPLv3 or LGPLv2 with exceptions The files in this tarball appear to have the same license text as Qt has. Fedora Qt package's license tag reads "LGPLv2 with exceptions or GPLv3 with exceptions". I'm not sure where exactly the GPLv3 exception is, though. rdieter is already in CC, maybe he can comment about that. In any case, if the license is the same, we should use the same license tag in both qt and in this package. > $ rpm -qlp qtsingleapplication-devel-2.6-1.fc14.i686.rpm > /usr/include/QtSolutions > /usr/include/QtSolutions/QtSingleApplication > /usr/include/QtSolutions/QtSingleCoreApplication > /usr/include/QtSolutions/qtsingleapplication.h > /usr/include/QtSolutions/qtsinglecoreapplication.h > /usr/lib/libQtSolutions_SingleApplication-2.6.so You have QtSingleCoreApplication header, but is the actual library missing? qtsingleapplication-build.diff file contains some build fixes. Removing examples from build isn't upstreamable, but the rest might be. Have you already submitted the fixes back to upstream? > %description devel > This package contains libraries and header files for developing applications > that use QtSingleCoreApplication. I think it shouldn't mention only "QtSingleCoreApplication" here (as opposed to "QtSingleApplication"). This package appears to bundle qtlockedfile library which is also distributed separately: http://qt.nokia.com/products/appdev/add-on-products/catalog/4/Utilities/qtlockedfile openSUSE's package also contains a qtsingleapplication.prf file with the following contents: INCLUDEPATH *= $$QMAKE_INCDIR_QT/QtSolutions DEPENDPATH *= $$QMAKE_INCDIR_QT/QtSolutions LIBS *= -lQtSolutions_SingleApplication-2.6 QT *= network Is it supposed to ease with linking against the "libQtSolutions_SingleApplication-2.6.so" file? If so, it might make sense to include it in our package too. The .so file name makes my eyes hurt ... -- 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