https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297821 --- Comment #4 from Dave Olsthoorn <dave.olsthoorn@xxxxxxxxx> --- > > Summary: Q Light Controller Plus > > Please try to fit some basic information about "Q Light Controller Plus" > purpose rather than expand %{name}. Okay, how about "DMX light controller software" > > qmlui/qml/FontAwesomeVariables.qml which is MIT/X11 > > ui/src/flowlayout.cpp and ui/src/flowlayout.h which are BSD > > It is ok to distribute MIT/X11 sources under Apache-2.0, see http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html The MIT/X11 source is for something that comes in a later release, the 5.0 release if I remember correctly. The BSD source gets used though > > plugins/udmx/src/libusb_dyn.c and plugins/udmx/src/libusb_dyn.h which are GPLv2+ > > GPLv2 source can't be re-licensed under Apache 2.0 > Anyway, "LIBUSB-WIN32, Generic Windows USB Library" - do you actually use > this file on Fedora? I think you can remove this file from a tarball or from > a build tree during %prep stage. Well these seem to be GPLv2+ so it can be re-licensed to GPLv3 which is compatible with the apache2.0 license > > webaccess/src/mongoose.c and webaccess/src/mongoose.h which are GPLv2 > > It is OK to make a subpackage with different license if this file is used by > a plugin. > Is it possible to split this library into a plugin? Does it have to be a plugin? or can it be a separate library too? > More GPLv2+ files: > > +qlcplus-QLC-_4.10.2b/plugins/hid/linux/hidapi.cpp > +qlcplus-QLC-_4.10.2b/plugins/peperoni/win32/peperoni/usbdmx-dynamic.cpp > +qlcplus-QLC-_4.10.2b/plugins/peperoni/win32/peperoni/usbdmx-dynamic.h > > Upstream claims to be licensed under ASL 2.0. I hope you will be able to > deal with libusb and mongoose and license the main package as ASL 2.0, as it > was desired by upstream. If in doubt, please ask upstream to resolve this > confusion [1]. > > [1]: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification > Again GPLv2+ can be re-licensed under GPLv3, and since GPLv3 is compatible with apache2.0 that seems to solve the problem. I have opened a issue on their github which can be found here[1] [1]: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/issues/760 > Please ensure that license file is present when any subpackage combination > is installed. Good point, I will put them in the -data package next revision > > %package plugin-artnet > > %package plugin-dmx4linux > > %package plugin-dmxusb > > %package plugin-e131 > > %package plugin-enttecwing > > %package plugin-hid > > %package plugin-loopback > > %package plugin-midi > > %package plugin-osc > > %package plugin-peperoni > > %package plugin-spi > > %package plugin-udmx > > %package plugin-ola > > Do you actually want to split all plugins into separate packages? > How it is supposed to be installed by the end user? > Shouldn't main package Recommends [3] for plugins needed for 99% of users? > > > Typical use cases for weak dependencies are: > > Plug-ins or add-ons > > Support for file formats > > Support for protocols > > ... > > [3]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:WeakDependencies I will add some Recommends in the next revision. I think this is a better way of doing things honestly, since for advanced users now have the ability to strip away plugins without it breaking every update. > ># fedora specific patch > >Patch0: qlcplus.ola-pkgconfig.patch > ># fixed upstream: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/commit/16b6728e5066a041297bc4d424ada515e85a1e75 > >Patch1: qlcplus.install-paths.patch > ># fixed upstream: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/commit/e29f34f7e89db4db3fce3bcb8449f991ef3b9a1f > >Patch2: qlcplus.udev-rules-path.patch > ># under review: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/pull/735 > >Patch3: qlcplus.fix-translate.patch > ># fixed upstream: > ># https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/commit/7dcc3cc006a6b03b659be99b72f9a23ce8b277c2 > ># https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/commit/81308651bab16a50eb35e8a0431c62de9f94942c > ># https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/commit/c6eff5b6b4d3852d922e7c966c21b33faf74299f > >Patch4: qlcplus.fix-licenses.patch > ># fedora specific patch > >Patch5: qlcplus.fedora-revision.patch > > I personally dislike idea of manually cherry-picking bugfixes from upstream's > git tree. It is like supporting a new fork and so requires too many efforts. > Ideally, it should be possible to bump `Version:` and then get spec for the > next release. > > Your efforts to push all requires changes to the upstream is the right > direction. > It is possible to make a snapshot package directly from git [2] and then > wait for the next tagged release. > > [2]: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages I don't think a snapshot package would go good for this package since the recent development doesn't make it that stable. I would rather keep up with normal releases then going with an unstable snapshot. > > Source1: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/etc/qlcplus.appdata.xml > > Source2: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/etc/qlcplus-fixtureeditor.appdata.xml > > # metainfo files from upstream > > Source3: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/E1.31/qlcplus-e131.metainfo.xml > > Source4: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/artnet/src/qlcplus-artnet.metainfo.xml > > Source5: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/dmx4linux/qlcplus-dmx4linux.metainfo.xml > > Source6: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/dmxusb/src/qlcplus-dmxusb.metainfo.xml > > Source7: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/enttecwing/src/qlcplus-enttecwing.metainfo.xml > > Source8: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/hid/linux/qlcplus-hid.metainfo.xml > > Source9: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/loopback/src/qlcplus-loopback.metainfo.xml > > Source10: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/midi/qlcplus-midi.metainfo.xml > > Source11: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/ola/qlcplus-ola.metainfo.xml > > Source12: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/osc/qlcplus-osc.metainfo.xml > > Source13: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/peperoni/unix/qlcplus-peperoni.metainfo.xml > > Source14: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/spi/qlcplus-spi.metainfo.xml > > Source15: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/raw/c126fcaaf59622009db8e3dca1f72e47bd9e77bd/plugins/udmx/src/qlcplus-udmx.metainfo.xml > > All these files already exist in the source tarball, generated by GitHub. Not the source tarball for the most recent release, however this is probably because you mentioned the git snapshot package. > > Minor issue, please report to upstream: > > libqlcplus.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid > /usr/lib64/libqlcpluswebaccess.so.1.0.0 > > https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/blob/ > 49a0a6d29070bc17a632f84f0a18add8ba859573/webaccess/src/mongoose.c#L5096-L5101 Done: https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/issues/759 > > Please open a ticket in the upstream to create simple man pages for > binaries un /usr/bin: > > /usr/bin/qlcplus > /usr/bin/qlcplus-fixtureeditor > https://github.com/mcallegari/qlcplus/issues/761 > Probably -data should depend on lib, but I'm not sure about that. How is that? -data doesn't need anything from lib, data and lib get installed when you install either qlcplus or qlcplus-fixtureeditor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review