https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316676 --- Comment #4 from Soumya Koduri <skoduri@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Nikolai Kondrashov from comment #3) > Thank you, Soumya! > > I'll work on the issues. However, I have a few questions: > > * I'd like to have the same .spec file work on RHEL6 and using %license > breaks it there. Is %license required? If yes, is there a good way to make > its use conditional? yes. As per Fedora packaging guidelines, %license is required. Below link may give some pointers on how to make it conditional. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging >>>>>> The %license tag The license tag is not supported by EL5. This can be worked around by adding the following magic just after %files: %{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc} This does not need to be made conditional on any specific Fedora or EPEL release; it does nothing on the releases which already have %license <<<<<<< > > * What needs to be done regarding the licencecheck.txt contents? I.e. > regarding some files missing the license notice and one file having the > MIT/X11 license (which is included into any package using autotools, > actually)? License (Copyright) text has to be added to all the files in the sources (with the exception to the auto-generated files). -- 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