https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1758626
--- Comment #27 from Qianqian Fang <[email protected]> --- > So, bundling tetgen etc if fine if necessary, but the binaries should not be > in /usr/share. That violates the FHS as rpmlint points out. Can they be moved > to an arch specific directory, preferably %{_libdir}/isomesh/... (so they > remain private and do not clash with the system tetgen libraries + binaries), > which will expand to /usr/lib/isomesh/ and /usr/lib64/isomesh according to > the architecture of the machine? ok, if I want to put those in %{_libdir}/isomesh/ and create symbolic links under iso2mesh/bin, do you mind showing me how to do it? my latest spec file can be found here, would be great if you can send me a pull request, thanks https://github.com/fangq/fedorapkg/tree/iso2mesh > Here we can see that the license checker has detected a lot of licenses > (including AGPLv3+ and GPLv2), so the package cannot be just GPLv3+. all the licenses included in this software are GPLv3+ compatible, except AGPLv3+, which is stricter, although it is also listed under GPL compatible licenses https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses which means I can declare all of them under the GPLv3+ license as a full package. If I have to distinguish GPLv3+ and AGPLv3+, please suggest how to do it. I want to make sure that AGPLv3+ only covers tetgen, but not other part of the software (which are covered under GPLv3+). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
