Bug 2386504

What relation does this package have to these copr repositories?:

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/groups/g/freecad/coprs/
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mr-miky/freeCadDev/

They have very different .spec files, is there some benefit with combining this work?

Thanks for pointing those out. The baseline is the same as the spec here (the previous FreeCAD 0.19 Fedora package) but some changes are definitely worth integrating. I'll look into in the coming days.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9379780
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386504-freecad/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09379780-freecad/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file
  addonmanager_devmode_license_selector.cpython-314.opt-1.pyc is not marked
  as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
  Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv2+'. It seems that you are using
  the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for
  converting it to SPDX.
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freecad
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General
     Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU Library General Public License,
     Version 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause
     License and/or zlib License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "GNU Lesser
     General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later",
     "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal
     address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or
     later", "*No copyright* GNU Library General Public License, Version
     2.0", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "BSD 3-Clause
     License", "*No copyright* Boost Software License and/or Freetype
     Project License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1
     and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public
     License, Version 2.1", "Boost Software License [generated file]", "GNU
     General Public License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "GNU Library
     General Public License v2 or later and/or zlib License [obsolete FSF
     postal address (Temple Place)]", "MIT License", "*No copyright*
     Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "Apache License 2.0", "Boost
     Software License 1.0", "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0",
     "*No copyright* Boost Software License 1.0 and/or MIT License", "GNU
     Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU Library General
     Public License v2 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later
     [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU Lesser General
     Public License, Version 2.1 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple
     Place)]", "Boost Software License", "*No copyright* GNU Library
     General Public License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address
     (Temple Place)]", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later
     [generated file, obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]",
     "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike", "GNU General Public
     License, Version 3 and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, Version
     2.1", "Boost Software License 1.0 and/or GNU Library General Public
     License v2 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]",
     "Khronos License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "*No
     copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause
     License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "GNU General
     Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License,
     Version 3", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Mozilla
     Public License 2.0", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later
     and/or MIT License [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No
     copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU
     Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 6649 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/freecad/2386504-freecad/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners:
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16,
     /usr/share/mime, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48,
     /usr/share/mime/packages, /usr/share/thumbnailers,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable/mimetypes,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32, /usr/share/icons/hicolor/scalable,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/64x64/apps, /usr/share/icons/hicolor
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 5812 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[ ]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[ ]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[ ]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
     Note: Package contains font files
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in freecad-
     data
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[ ]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: freecad-1.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          freecad-data-1.0.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          freecad-1.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpqgwer7d3')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

Initial comments:
a) Please require hicolor-icon-theme
b) Main license should use SPDX identifier
LGPL-2.0-or-later
c) Can licenses for other files also be listed?
d) The latest release is 1.0.2
e) Raised issue to register name on PyPI
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/issues/22965
f) Guidelines Support Library (GSL) is packaged:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/guidelines-support-library
can it be used?
g) Smesh is a modified version for FreeCAD, so it is unlikely another
version could be used.
h) Can some of the tests be run? See for example:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/blob/main/.github/workflows/sub_buildUbuntu.yml

Thanks for your review. Updated package below. Regarding the tests, I gave it a shot but didn't yet manage to get them running.


%changelog
* Sun Aug 10 2025 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 1:1.0.2-1
- Update to 1.0.2
- Build against external guidelines-support-library
- List other licenses
- Filter providers

Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad-1.0.2-1.fc43.src.rpm

Created attachment 2103207 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9379780 to 9395856

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9395856
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386504-freecad/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09395856-freecad/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file addonmanager_devmode_license_selector.cpython-314.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1 AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD 3-Clause AND BSL-1.0 AND Artistic-2.0 AND MIT AND CC-BY-3.0 AND ASL-2.0 AND zlib'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freecad
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

@benson_muite Ping?

Trying to understand reason for failing tests
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=136302416

Trying to get upstream packit integration:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/23293

Bruno, is there interest in bringing IfcOpenShell into Fedora? It would be helpful for
FreeCAD, and you seem to have a COPR as a good starting point:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bpostle/IfcOpenShell/

Having IfcOpenShell in fedora is definitely a goal and I don't think there are any licensing obstacles. The FreeCAD BIM module needs IfcOpenShell, though it fails gracefully if it is not available - ie. FreeCAD can be built without IfcOpenShell and the BIM functionality magically appears if it is subsequently installed.

IfcOpenShell has finally moved to a regular release schedule (every few months), this was a blocker before.

Bonsai is in the same repository as IfcOpenShell so I package it as a subpackage, but I don't think that users would be well-served by having a Bonsai that was always a few months out of date, so this is not ready for fedora. ie. any fedora IfcOpenShell package would exclude Bonsai, and I would continue packaging snapshosts of IfcOpenShell with Bonsai in a COPR. FreeCAD doesn't need an IfcOpenShell snapshot and is fine with the current stable release.

The main problem is that various IfcOpenShell sub-modules require python packages that are not currently in fedora:

    python3-pystache python3-olca python3-cjio python3-xsdata

I don't have the capacity to take on maintaining libraries in fedora that I don't understand.

(In reply to Bruno Postle from comment #12)
> Having IfcOpenShell in fedora is definitely a goal and I don't think there
> are any licensing obstacles. The FreeCAD BIM module needs IfcOpenShell,
> though it fails gracefully if it is not available - ie. FreeCAD can be built
> without IfcOpenShell and the BIM functionality magically appears if it is
> subsequently installed.
> 
> IfcOpenShell has finally moved to a regular release schedule (every few
> months), this was a blocker before.
> 
> Bonsai is in the same repository as IfcOpenShell so I package it as a
> subpackage, but I don't think that users would be well-served by having a
> Bonsai that was always a few months out of date, so this is not ready for
> fedora. ie. any fedora IfcOpenShell package would exclude Bonsai, and I
> would continue packaging snapshosts of IfcOpenShell with Bonsai in a COPR.
> FreeCAD doesn't need an IfcOpenShell snapshot and is fine with the current
> stable release.
> 
> The main problem is that various IfcOpenShell sub-modules require python
> packages that are not currently in fedora:
> 
>     python3-pystache python3-olca python3-cjio python3-xsdata
> 
> I don't have the capacity to take on maintaining libraries in fedora that I
> don't understand.

Ok. Will work on packaging these.  Not a blocker for FreeCAD.

Can get some of the tests to run:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/freecad/build/9497014/

In the license field,
ASL-2.0 should be Apache-2.0
BSD 3-Clause should be BSD-3-Clause
zlib should be Zlib


The directories
/usr/share/mime, /usr/share/thumbnailers, /usr/share/mime/packages
are not owned.

The main package requires the data package, and the data package
requires the main package.  This can prevent installation.  Perhaps
add the license to the data package so that it does not require the
main package.

Thanks. Do you recon it is worthwhile to include those tests? Seems somewhat of a monster.

Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad-1.0.2-2.fc43.src.rpm

%changelog
* Fri Aug 29 2025 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 1:1.0.2-2
- Fix incorrect SPDX license identifiers in License
- Add %%license to data subpackage, drop Requires on main package from data subpackage
- Own %%{_datadir}/mime, %%{_datadir}/mime/packages, %%{_datadir}/thumbnailers

There seems to be some problem with the following file.
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad-1.0.2-2.fc43.src.rpm
Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error.
Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Fixing SRPM URL:

Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad.spec
SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad-1.0.2-2.fc44.src.rpm

%changelog
* Fri Aug 29 2025 Sandro Mani <manisandro> - 1:1.0.2-2
- Fix incorrect SPDX license identifiers in License
- Add %%license to data subpackage, drop Requires on main package from data subpackage
- Own %%{_datadir}/mime, %%{_datadir}/mime/packages, %%{_datadir}/thumbnailers

Created attachment 2105144 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9395856 to 9500774

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9500774
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2386504-freecad/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09500774-freecad/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file addonmanager_devmode_license_selector.cpython-314.opt-1.pyc is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1 AND LGPL-2.1-or-later AND GPL-3.0-or-later AND BSD-3-Clause AND BSL-1.0 AND Artistic-2.0 AND MIT AND CC-BY-3.0 AND Apache-2.0 AND Zlib'.
  Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/freecad
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Started packaging process for OndselSolver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2392428

*** Bug 2487528 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

I have a spec for FreeCAD 1.1.1, written without starting from the 0.19 package
as FreeCAD has changed a lot. This runs the test suite, and I applied several
improvements from this spec. I'd like to work with you on packaging FreeCAD :)

Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/freecad.spec
SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/4560/146584560/freecad-1.1.1-1.fc45.src.rpm

Is the spec something that could be upstreamed?
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/blob/main/package/fedora/freecad.spec

Tests for the bundled lru-cache do not build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146629252
Related issue:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/issues/30789

> Is the spec something that could be upstreamed?

I can look at submitting a variant of it upstream. Does that affect the Fedora packaging?

> Tests for the bundled lru-cache do not build

Looks like it's due to -Werror?

(In reply to Elaine Gibson from comment #24)
> > Is the spec something that could be upstreamed?
> 
> I can look at submitting a variant of it upstream. Does that affect the
> Fedora packaging?
> 

No, the spec used for packaging can be done independently.  It may help
reduce redundant work though and make package maintenance easier.

> > Tests for the bundled lru-cache do not build
> 
> Looks like it's due to -Werror?

Remove -Werror from
https://github.com/goldsborough/lru-cache/blob/master/tests/CMakeLists.txt#L5

Now get
/builddir/build/BUILD/lru-cache-0_20170330git13f30ad-build/lru-cache-13f30ad33a227a3e9682578c450777380ecddfcf/include/lru/internal/base-ordered-iterator.hpp:128:12: error: use of deleted function ‘std::optional<LRU::Entry<const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>, int> >& std::optional<LRU::Entry<const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>, int> >::operator=(std::optional<LRU::Entry<const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>, int> >&&)’
  128 |     _entry = std::move(unordered_iterator._entry);
      |     ~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In file included from /usr/include/gtest/internal/gtest-port.h:2388,
                 from /usr/include/gtest/gtest-message.h:57,
                 from /usr/include/gtest/gtest-assertion-result.h:46,
                 from /usr/include/gtest/gtest.h:63,
                 from /builddir/build/BUILD/lru-cache-0_20170330git13f30ad-build/lru-cache-13f30ad33a227a3e9682578c450777380ecddfcf/tests/iterator-test.cpp:26:
/usr/include/c++/16/optional:810:11: note: ‘std::optional<LRU::Entry<const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>, int> >& std::optional<LRU::Entry<const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>, int> >::operator=(std::optional<LRU::Entry<const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>, int> >&&)’ is implicitly deleted because the default definition would be ill-formed:
  810 |     class optional
      |           ^~~~~~~~
/usr/include/c++/16/optional:810:11: error: use of deleted function ‘std::_Enable_copy_move<true, false, true, false, _Tag>& std::_Enable_copy_move<true, false, true, false, _Tag>::operator=(std::_Enable_copy_move<true, false, true, false, _Tag>&&) [with _Tag = std::optional<LRU::Entry<const std::__cxx11::basic_string<char>, int> >]’
In file included from /usr/include/c++/16/optional:50:
/usr/include/c++/16/bits/enable_special_members.h:251:5: note: declared here
  251 |     operator=(_Enable_copy_move&&) noexcept                         = delete;
      |     ^~~~~~~~



Note that the examples also do not build.

Do you have any thoughts on:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/issues/30789
It is preferable to package lru-cache rather than bundle it, though it
is likely one could also replace it with something else.

> No, the spec used for packaging can be done independently.  It may help
> reduce redundant work though and make package maintenance easier.

Okay, makes sense.

> It is preferable to package lru-cache rather than bundle it, though it
> is likely one could also replace it with something else.

It seems lru-cache is not actually used unless BUILD_MATERIAL_EXTERNAL=ON,
so maybe it is okay to just remove it?

This leaves zipios++ and SMESH as the bundled libraries, which are both
forks that have significantly diverged from upstream. The older specs
include an option for external zipios but this no longer works.

FreeCAD also has its own test suite for zipios:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/tree/main/tests/src/zipios%2B%2B

Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/freecad.spec
SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8333/146698333/freecad-1.1.1-1.fc45.src.rpm

3rdParty/3Dconnexion and 3rdParty/OpenGL can also be removed as
they are only used on Windows.

Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/freecad.spec
SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8957/146698957/freecad-1.1.1-1.fc45.src.rpm

- Cleaned up license field.
- Excluded private provides and requires.

Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/freecad.spec
SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/8301/146708301/freecad-1.1.1-1.fc45.src.rpm

- Separate subpackage license.

Spec URL: https://ypsvlq.fedorapeople.org/freecad.spec
SRPM URL: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5838/146715838/freecad-1.1.1-1.fc45.src.rpm

OndselSolver package needs updating for master to build, after which the spec
could be submitted upstream.

I would be happy to co-maintain the ondselsolver package.

(In reply to Elaine Gibson from comment #30)
> OndselSolver package needs updating for master to build, after which the spec
> could be submitted upstream.
> 
> I would be happy to co-maintain the ondselsolver package.

Updated ondselsolver in rawhide.  It maybe better to create a SIG for this and related packages.
There is a 3D printing SIG, though it does not seem very active.

(In reply to Elaine Gibson from comment #26)
> > No, the spec used for packaging can be done independently.  It may help
> > reduce redundant work though and make package maintenance easier.
> 
> Okay, makes sense.
> 
> > It is preferable to package lru-cache rather than bundle it, though it
> > is likely one could also replace it with something else.
> 
> It seems lru-cache is not actually used unless BUILD_MATERIAL_EXTERNAL=ON,
> so maybe it is okay to just remove it?
> 

At present one should not use Fedora to design rockets, but given the valuation
of startups in the rocket industry this may change, so have asked originator of
the change about modifying it:
https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/issues/30789

(In reply to Elaine Gibson from comment #26)

> 
> This leaves zipios++ and SMESH as the bundled libraries, which are both
> forks that have significantly diverged from upstream. The older specs
> include an option for external zipios but this no longer works.
> 
> FreeCAD also has its own test suite for zipios:
> https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/tree/main/tests/src/zipios%2B%2B
> 

Maybe upstream could be persuaded to put zipios++ and SMESH in seperate repositories
under the FeeCAD organization?  My understanding is that SMESH development
has ceased on the original upstream repository. Perhaps zipios++ could
be renamed so as not to conflict with the original upstream.

> It maybe better to create a SIG for this and related packages.

That seems like a good idea given the large dependency tree.

> Maybe upstream could be persuaded to put zipios++ and SMESH in seperate repositories
> under the FeeCAD organization?

To me that feels like a lot to ask of them, and I'm not sure it is even good for us:

> My understanding is that SMESH development has ceased on the original upstream repository.

I don't think so: https://github.com/SalomePlatform/smesh/commits/master

SMESH and zipios++ are more separate from FreeCAD than OndselSolver, so even if they
were different repositories I don't know if it would be right to package them that way.
We could have SMESH-freecad and zipios++-freecad in Fedora, but what is the benefit?

Since FreeCAD has essentially integrated the code of SMESH and zipios++ and maintains
it independently, "avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together"
doesn't seem appropriate here. As I understand it, that is about the more typical case of
a vendored dependency with maybe some minor patches, but here they have been developed in
the FreeCAD tree for years (and SMESH has been developed upstream at the same time).