>>>>> "TC" == Tom \"spot\" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: TC> * For binary RPMs, the complete set of license files (as provided by TC> upstream) must be included in the %doc section of either the main TC> binary rpm or a common RPM that the other binary sub-packages depend TC> on. Independent sub-packages are required to include their own copy TC> of the relevant license texts (as provided by upstream). Seems fine to me as long as we otherwise stick to our prohibition on file duplication. Do we need to somehow define "license files"? If documentation specifies "this is GPL", does that make it a license file? Does the presence of a COPYING file change the answer? (I know, it's a relatively pointless question, but I know with certainty that it won't be too long before it is asked in a package review.) - J< -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
