https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1972445 --- Comment #8 from Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> --- Thank you for the update. Other issues I listed are ok now, but the license question is still not completely right. LGPL is layered on top of GPL, so *both* LGPL and GPL license texts must be included. GNU instructs putting GPL to COPYING and LGPL to COPYING.LESSER [1]. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html ---- Shared object naming is indeed strange. The packaging guidelines do not say anything about this, but I agree shipping something with .so.1.6.0 extension when SONAME is actually at 6 is confusing. In absence of guidelines for this, I am fine with both keeping or discarding the 1.6.0 alternative. ---- Just a thought which does not necessarily require any action: If the servusBrowser utility is the reason this package pulls in Qt, it could make sense to minimize dependencies by moving it to its own subpackage. But I also see a folder called 'servus/qt' being part of the library itself, so it may be that disentangling these would require upstream cooperation. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
