I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day job and a "good" free CAD solution would be neat. It has OpenCascade as a major dependency, which uses their own license[1]. They claim it's LGPL-like. Would this have to go in free or non-free?

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt; wrote: > Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500: >> I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day >> job and a "good" free CAD solution would be neat. >> >> It has OpenCascade as a major dependency, which uses their own >> license[1]. They claim it's LGPL-like. Would this have to go in free >> or non-free? > > per Tom "Spot" Callaway and Red Hat Legal it is non-free, you should be > able to find the details in the archive of the fedora-legal mailing list > and/or OCC package review request in Fedora bugzilla. > > OCC 6.3.0 is available from http://fedora.danny.cz/danny/ and it would > be nice to see OCC in a more official repo. I poked through all the source repos and didn't see OCC. Did I miss something?

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt; wrote: > Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500: >> I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day >> job and a "good" free CAD solution would be neat. >> >> It has OpenCascade as a major dependency, which uses their own >> license[1]. They claim it's LGPL-like. Would this have to go in free >> or non-free? > > per Tom "Spot" Callaway and Red Hat Legal it is non-free, you should be > able to find the details in the archive of the fedora-legal mailing list > and/or OCC package review request in Fedora bugzilla. > > OCC 6.3.0 is available from http://fedora.danny.cz/danny/ and it would > be nice to see OCC in a more official repo. Well I took a look at your source package. Do you have any interest in maintaining it in RPM Fusion?

The reason I ask is I noticed the large number of patches that I'm not sure I'm even qualified to maintain. I see some minor things that need to be changed in the spec but overall it's in very good shape.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt; wrote: > Richard Shaw píše v Út 01. 11. 2011 v 08:57 -0500: >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt; wrote: >> > Richard Shaw píše v Po 31. 10. 2011 v 16:16 -0500: >> >> I'm taking a shot a building FreeCAD since I'm a CAD jockey in my day >> >> job and a "good" free CAD solution would be neat. >> >> >> >> It has OpenCascade as a major dependency, which uses their own >> >> license[1]. They claim it's LGPL-like. Would this have to go in free >> >> or non-free? >> > >> > per Tom "Spot" Callaway and Red Hat Legal it is non-free, you should be >> > able to find the details in the archive of the fedora-legal mailing list >> > and/or OCC package review request in Fedora bugzilla. >> > >> > OCC 6.3.0 is available from http://fedora.danny.cz/danny/ and it would >> > be nice to see OCC in a more official repo. >> >> Well I took a look at your source package. Do you have any interest in >> maintaining it in RPM Fusion? > > That was the original plan, but as you can see the package is still in > version 6.3.0 while upstream (and Debian) has 6.5.0 already. > Unfortunately I got quite busy with other work so I couldn't give OCC > the needed care. > >> The reason I ask is I noticed the large number of patches that I'm not >> sure I'm even qualified to maintain. I see some minor things that need >> to be changed in the spec but overall it's in very good shape. > > The community around OCC is much alive in Debian, so I took the patches > mainly from them, some are mine and they were sent to Debian. OCC is a > large package and sharing the work is really necessary. The structure > how are the libraries divided into subpackages is also copied from > Debian, with the exception that there is only one devel subpackage. I'll see if I can dig up the updated patches from them then. I downloaded the new 6.5.1 source which I noticed was about twice the size of the one in your SRPM. Did you remove some parts of the source? For instance, windows only portions or pre-compiled portions?

I finally got it to build!

I had to go through the debian *.install files to clean up all the %files sections as there were a lot of libraries removed and a couple added. Let me know if you're still interested.

Richard Shaw wrote: > Is there any major difference between OCC and OCE (community edition) > that you know of? I guess it's a fork because upstream wouldn't accept community patches (also a bad sign, next to the license). Unfortunately, the community cannot change upstream's license, only upstream can.

Dan, I'm cleaning up the spec file getting it ready for submission. Are you interested in reviewing and co-maintaining OCE rather than OCC?

Richard Shaw wrote: > Long story short, I figured it out by hacking together some cmake > config changes. Although, a debian guy on the oce-dev list thinks my > changes are wrong... All I know is there's no more libraries or > executables not able to find their dependent libraries, so it works > for me! > > If you want to see here's my pull request on github[1]. Your changes look right to me, except for one thing: > list(FIND CMAKE_INSTALL_RPATH "${dir}" _exists) What's the purpose of this check? I think the _isSystem check alone should be sufficient. Whether the directory already existed or not should not be relevant.

I'm also not sure whether those scripts you change to be executable should really be executable. Generally, the best practices are that scripts should be marked executable if and only if they have a valid #! line on top.

Richard Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> I'm also not sure whether those scripts you change to be executable >> should really be executable. Generally, the best practices are that >> scripts should be marked executable if and only if they have a valid #! >> line on top. > > Where did you look at the files? I didn't, that's why I wrote I wasn't sure. ;-) (That wasn't supposed to be rhetorical.)

Dan, Are you still interested in reviewing this package? https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2054 Version 0.8.0 is about to be released which includes patches I got upstreamed. (Yay for for packages that build with zero patches!)

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Dan Horák <dan(a)danny.cz&gt; wrote: > yes, I am, taking for review now Ok, now that you've approved it I need your RPM Fusion account name to add as a co-maintainer :)