Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
