On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 12:23, Barry Jackson <zen25...@zen.co.uk> wrote: > On 04/03/12 11:01, Michael Scherer wrote: >> >> >> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=458974 >> ( notably the comment from #10 ). I would push this to non-free, because >> that would be a problem for a company. > > > OK - Is that: "--define section=non-free/release" (I never used that > before) > > What about the license field in the spec? I suspect that the BS will reject > anything that issues an rpmlint warning - and everything I have tried so far > does. e.g. "LGPL-like"
For non free we have generic things like Freeware. I haven't read the licence but if it is non free mentioning LGPL would be misleading > I am also somewhat confused by the modular approach used by Debian to > package this. It seems over-complicated, but I may be missing the point. > I opted for a single library, -devel and main. > Any thoughts on this? > > The object is to provide needed Requires/BuildRequires for FreeCAD which I > am also working on. > > Barry