Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/freecad-1.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: A general purpose 3D CAD modeler Fedora Account System Username: smani
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