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

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at gmail.com> 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.