https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1027770
--- Comment #31 from Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #30) > The License: tag looks good. However, as stated in [2] you need to provide a > breakdown describing what files have what license (writing this is a comment > will become too much). > > The breakdown is just a text file. You can use the attachment as a starting > point, edit it in whatever way you want, call it e. g., LICENSE-BREAKDOWN > and include it in the package. You will need to fix it manually, since the > automatic license scanning reports that files have no license although they > have (e. g., the ccan files). And you can add whatever other notes you want. It wasn't that easy adding a packager's file into %doc. I've managed by installing the PACKAGE-LICENSE into %{buildroot}/%{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}/, but doesn't look so good (even though it was taken from fedora packaging tricks). Anyway, the current package contains the PACKAGE-LICENSE which clarifies the licenses used per-file. -- 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 [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
