Bug 1199414

Summary: using %license COPYRIGHT instead of %doc is reported as an issue
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Tomáš Hozza <thozza>
Component: fedora-reviewAssignee: Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni>
Status: CLOSED UPSTREAM QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 21CC: leamas.alec, pingou, sochotni
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: 2015-04-15 13:52:31 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
spec none

Description Tomáš Hozza 2015-03-06 08:31:06 UTC 
Created attachment 998716 [details]
spec

Description of problem:
I run fedora review on attached spec file. The COPYRIGHT is included in -license sub-package and the %license macro is used instead of %doc. If any of the final RPMs is installed, it pulls the -license subpackage, so license is always installed. fedora-review reports that the COPYRIGHT is missing and that the %doc macro should be used.

Based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines %license macro should be used.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
fedora-review-0.5.2-2.fc21.noarch

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:
The review.txt contains:

Issues:
=======
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
  its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
  package is included in %doc.
  Note: Cannot find COPYRIGHT in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


Expected results:
The COPYRIGHT with %license macro should be correctly detected.

Additional info:
I may be wrong on interpreting the fedora-review reported issue
Comment 1 Alec Leamas 2015-04-15 13:52:31 UTC 
Fixed in upstream commits 

https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/changeset/8d69b0f8216a99c66d7d77
https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/changeset/c5af12e9aacb007f2c2323