https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778 --- Comment #11 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Ben Beasley from comment #10) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > > No, the packager does not need to repeat the %license thing if the license > > file is already part of --licensefiles. > > > > There is no rule nor recommendation to have licenses in > > /usr/share/licenses/, the only rule is to make them with %license and > > %pyproject_save_files already does that, if upstream has the correct > > metadata. > > > > See > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/ > > #_example_spec_file and look up %license. > > This comes up a *lot*. I’d like to propose that we explicitly clarify this > point in the Licensing Guidelines, but I haven’t yet figured out how to word > it without making the relevant section too verbose and meandering. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1223 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2136778 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
