https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356 --- Comment #2 from Nils Tonnätt <nils.tonnaett@xxxxxxx> --- 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. 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 didn't add %check because it doesn't work. I will contact the developers. -- 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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review