[Bug 581220] Review Request: qtsingleapplication - Qt library to start applications only once per user

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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 #11 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-02 20:24:29 EDT ---
Thanks for the comments.

(In reply to comment #8)
> I wonder if upstream is going to be consistent with using _ in versions; we
> should be careful to avoid introducing Epoch in case they want to release, say,
> 2.6.1 next.
> rpmdev-vercmp says that 2.6_1 is newer than 2.6.1.    

Currently I have set the version to 2.6. So we are safe for the time being, 
there is no problem with updating without introducing epoch. Are we allowed to
have _ in the version tag? Guidelines tell us to move the nonnumeric characters
to the release tag.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Version

(In reply to comment #9)
> /usr/include/QtSolutions should be owned by qtsingleapplication-devel,
> otherwise removing the package will leave dangling empty directory behind.
> 

Nope. There is no need. qtlockedfile owns that directory.

> There are separate qtsingleapplication.h and qtsinglecoreapplication.h headers
> in the include dir and in the build dir there are separate
> qtsingleapplication.o and qtsinglecoreapplication.o object files; however there
> is only qtsingleapplication DSO installed and the Core variant appears to be
> missing.
> 

They are not missing. The symbols of both are built into the same DSO.

(In reply to comment #10)
> It might actually make sense to just remove Core headers too. We can always fix
> up Core library build later when some programs that actually need this show up
> in Fedora. Right now I can't think of any package which can take advantage of
> QtSingleCoreApplication.
> 

clementine includes a modified version of QtSingleCoreApplication in addition
to QtSingleApplication, but I don't think they are using it. I can remove this
library...

> However if you choose to fix Core build, I think it should go in a separate
> subpackage:
> qtsingleapplication -> depends on QtQui
> qtsinglecoreapplication -> depends only on QtCore    

... or move it into another subpackage. But is there really a need? It occupies
so little space, and as you said, there is nothing else that requires it.

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]