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 --- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-15 11:15:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) Thanks for having a look! > 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. > I didn't make an investigation on this yet. I will verify this and proceed accordingly. > > $ 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? > Both libraries are is inside the /usr/lib/libQtSolutions_SingleApplication-2.6.so. As far as I remember I took the build.diff patch from SusE. But I'll have another look. > 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? > Nope, not yet. I am gonna do this when we are sure we make things the right way. > > %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"). > That's a typo. Will fix. > 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 > Gee. That means I will package that one separately too. Thanks for letting me know. > 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 ... I am not familiar with .prf files. Suse ships this through an external source. I didn't include it. Is this like a pkg-config mechanism? Rex? -- 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