Bug 1037967

Summary:	Packaging issues
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael>
Component:	aunit	Assignee:	Pavel Zhukov <pzhukov>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	bugs.michael, nobody, pzhukov
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2013-12-04 14:19:23 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Michael Schwendt 2013-12-04 07:29:05 UTC

Bug 1001249 has been closed without responding to the comment there, so:

[...]

No files are duplicated anymore, but are they placed correctly?

* Now the base package contains the .html/.info/.pdf/.txt developer docs, and the -devel package the license COPYING and README.

* The license file belongs into the base package (and the -devel package depends on that one):
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing

* "License" tag claims "GPLv2+", but file COPYING is GPLv3, and source files contain a GPLv3 "or later" preamble.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#.22or_later_version.22_licenses

* The README refers to the docs, which are in a different package.

* There's an empty /usr/share/aunit and /usr/share/aunit/examples directory.

* %defattr(...) is superfluous even for RHEL5.

Comment 1 Pavel Zhukov 2013-12-04 07:45:51 UTC

Any reasons to create new bugreport and reopen old one?

Comment 2 Michael Schwendt 2013-12-04 07:50:24 UTC

It's an accident only. Responding to my comment would have been nice.

Comment 3 Pavel Zhukov 2013-12-04 14:19:23 UTC

All fixed. 
Thank you for review.