On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 7:23 PM Mattia Verga <mattia.verga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Il 04/01/23 19:11, Ben Beasley ha scritto: > > There is an FPC issue open to clarify this in the guidelines, since it comes up over and over in package reviews. The conclusion has always been that license files do not have to be in a particular directory. Someone needs to come up with a simple and well-worded statement on the matter and open a PR to update the guidelines. > > > > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1223 > > > Thanks, I wasn't aware of that ticket. It's still not clear to me, in > the ticket it is said "%license is mandatory", but doesn't %license > macro copy files under /usr/share/licenses in addition to adding the tag? > > As a personal note, I don't like this solution, as you need to inspect > the built RPM to check that the license files are really installed, > while explicitly set them in the specfile is much more straightforward. If the argument to the %license macro is a relative path, the macro will copy the file(s) to %{_licensedir} and mark them as %license files. If it's an absolute path, it *doesn't* copy the file(s), but still marks them as %license files. I guess with relative paths, it's safe to assume that in most cases, these files are just in the project's root directory but not installed somewhere by its build system. But with an absolute path inside the buildroot, you *know for certain* that the file is already installed in some of the built packages. Fabio _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
