https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1210356 --- Comment #3 from Sinny Kumari <ksinny@xxxxxxxxx> --- (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 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review