Bug 226215

What is the license of this package?  License tag says LGPL, upstream tarball
contains both GPL and LGPL license texts, contains both GPL (irda.h,
obex_connect.h) and LGPL sources, and only the GPL license file is included in
binary packages.  Mixture of GPL and LGPL sources which are all built in would
make all of this fall under the GPL, no?

right

please check openobex-1.3-5.fc7

Created attachment 150826 [details]
Fix pkgconfig path on lib64 archs

- libusb.pc is searched from a wrong dir on lib64 archs by configure (see
patch), resulting in missing "Requires: libusb" from the .pc file

- BuildRequires and ExcludeArch for -apps seem to be dupes, they're already in
the main package

- autoreconf would be better placed in %prep

- configuring with --disable-dependency-tracking would clean up the build
output and possibly speed the build up a bit

- Summaries and descriptions could be improved quite a bit.  The description
for -devel is actually wrong.

- make -C doc does not actually seem to build anything, and (unsurprisingly)
its results aren't included in any subpackages.  Perhaps build the HTML doc
(make -C doc html) and include it in -devel, or don't build any of the docs,
and drop the make -C doc as well as docbook related build dependencies?

- Including all AUTHORS etc %docs in all subpackages doesn't look too useful,
perhaps drop them altogether from -apps and -devel since they require the main
package anyway and seem to contain only generic info about the software which
is probably best kept in the main package?

Ping?

adding the new owner of openobex to CC

Hi, I fixed the errors above, so could someone please re-check it?

Thank you

jirka

I don't see any of the raised issues fixed in CVS.

Hi, it should be fixed only in F-7 branch. I will fix it in all other branches
when you'll check it.

Thank you

jirka

Ok, looks better now.  However there's now branch confusion as the F-8 and devel
branches have changes (ipv6, source URL, License tag) that are not included in
the F-7 branch but on the other hand lack fixes in the F-7 one (cleanups,
libusb.pc fix).  And the 1.3-6%{?dist} in F-7 and F-8+ are quite different.

If the current F-7 package fixes were ported to the devel branch and then the
whole shebang back to earlier branches from devel, I think we'd be good to go. 
Let me know when one/some of the branches have all the fixes and I'll take one
more look at that.

Created attachment 240941 [details]
Remaining cosmetic fixes

Ok, devel branch looks good now, patch for some remaining cosmetic issues
attached.  Approved with it applied.

Should be fixed and consistent in all actual branches (F7, F8, devel). Thank you
for reviewing.

jirka

The F-7 branch still has "License: GPL", different source URL and the unneeded
"0:" in the autoconf dependency, but fixing those is not obviously required per
this review as the F-8 and devel branches look ok.

man-pages-it-2.65-6.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update man-pages-it'