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=484535
--- Comment #13 from Milos Jakubicek xjakub@fi.muni.cz 2009-02-21 21:35:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12)
rpmlint says that the Provides: should be versioned. Not sure if I should, and if so, what version it should be. %{version}-%{release} I'd guess, if any.
- Yes, it should and those Provides/Obsoletes statements must be placed also by the subpackages, see this draft for details: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Archive:PackagingDrafts/ProvidesObsoletes
- remove duplicate Requires: openvpn/vpnc, they're again pulled by the NetworkManager-openvpn/vpnc packages.
- by providing a more appropriate description, I really didn't mean to expand the macro;) You should briefly describe the functions of the plasmoid, please try to do so for a few lines.
- regardins licensing it's a big mess:
GPLv2+: - libs/dbus/*
LGPLv2: - in libs/ui: accesspoint.cpp,h apitemdelegate.cpp,h apitemmodel.cpp,h apitemview.cpp,h ifaceitemmodel.cpp,h scanwidget.cpp,h - in libs: marshalarguments.h types.h - in libs/storage/settings: wephash.cpp,h - in settings: ip4config.cpp,h - in settings/service: busconnection.cpp,h networksettings.cpp,h
LGPLv2+: - in tests: testconfigxml.cpp,h testnewstorage.cpp,h
GPLv2 or GPLv3 ("Qt Nokia"): tests/qdbusfornm.cpp
MISSING LICENSE: libs/ui/vpnuiplugin.cpp
all others under libs/ are LGPLv2+ all others are GPLv2+
So...this is a bit problem, please:
- you can (but not must of course) try to persuade upstream to unify the licenses to GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ if it is possible. Currently it violates the GPL licenses according to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#GPL_Compatibility_Matrix (You cannot copy LGPLv2 code within GPLv2+ project without converting to GPLv2) So you should at least try that.
- you really should persuade them to: -- add the license info to libs/ui/vpnuiplugin.cpp if it not autogenerated -- include the license files for GPLv2 and LGPLv2, LICENSE.GPL and GPL_EXCEPTIONS.TXT. Suggest naming the GPLv2 license file as LICENSE.GPL to avoid duplicates. - please put the information I've gathered above into a LICENSING.INFO file and package it as a %doc
As it is now, the License tag would be: (GPLv2 or GPLv3) and GPLv2+ and LGPLv2+ and LGPLv2