https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1943526 Alessio <alciregi@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(alciregi@posteo.n | |et) | --- Comment #6 from Alessio <alciregi@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Ok. I have a doubt. If I don't put LICENSE under %doc, I get Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/doc/libuev/LICENSE So, %license macro is still necessary? Or is it fine to have the LICENSE file under /usr/share/doc/libuev/LICENSE and under /usr/share/licenses/libuev/LICENSE? New files: Spec URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/uredir/libuev.spec SRPM URL: https://alciregi.fedorapeople.org/uredir/libuev-2.3.2-1.fc34.src.rpm -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
