On 27/08/06, Anthony Green <green@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a review, I was told: MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. Now the package's README includes the text below. I added a GPLv2 COPYING file as SOURCE1 and installed it as a %doc file. Is this really wrong? It's hard to imagine why.
It's likely that the missing COPYING file from the tarball is an oversight upstream - the best way of fixing this is to file a bug with the upstream maintainer saying that the COPYING file is missing, and politely asking them to add it to the tarball of the next release. In my experience, maintainers are usually very responsive to this. Jonathan. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
