https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356
--- Comment #3 from Sinny Kumari <ksinny(a)gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Nils Tonnätt from comment #2)
Thank you for your (un-official) review.
I'm a bit confused. Why is
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package saying that
%license is not valid under fedora? The example %files section is using
'%doc LICENSE' too.
Yes, this wiki says to include License file using %doc macro but I have got
suggestion to use %license macro for license files from official Fedora
reviewer (BZ#1182261#c9).
Maybe
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package needs to be
updated as well.
I updated the spec and srpm. %license is doing something special.
But
fedora-review says:
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 %doc.
Note: Cannot find COPYING in rpm(s)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
I think, this can be ignored.
I didn't add %check because it doesn't work. I will contact
the developers.
That would be great
--
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