Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com> writes:
On Ter, 2015-12-01 at 16:44 +0000, Dave Love wrote:
> What's the correct way to write a spec file that obeys the %license*
> stipulation but also works for epel6?
>
> Some time ago I was told to follow
>
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411 and write
>
> %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}
>
> and that now also appears in
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging?rd=Packaging:EPEL#The_.
> 25license_tag
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#The_.25license_tag
have the correct form :
%{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc}
Well, it doesn't seem to make any difference.
I'm now baffled. I had the %%doc version above in a spec file, and
fedora-review complained about doc v. license. I checked with rpmbuild,
as below, found that _licensedir wasn't defined, only
_defaultlicensedir; so I changed to using that and the review complaint
went away.
However, a test with a trivial spec file shows that licensedir actually
is defined. Where does it come from, and why isn't it shown by
--showrc? Now I can't reproduce the issue with what I was packaging,
consistent with the test. Also I checked the dssp packages I did
recently using the %%doc form, and they show the right difference
between el5/6 and the rest.
> I now realize it's not working in any non-el5/6 mock root
I've tried,
> because the macro isn't defined (according to "rpmbuild --showrc"),
> only
> _defaultlicensedir is.
>
> Is the instruction simply wrong, or am I missing something?
Apologies for the noise, but...
-- Confused of Liverpool