Bug 2418957

Summary:	[Lenovo] faad2-libs licence files missing from filesystem
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Mark Pearson <mpearson>
Component:	faad2	Assignee:	Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	43	CC:	caznaranl, decathorpe, dominik, extras-qa, jamacku, kdudka, kwizart, kzak, lnykryn, multimedia-sig, spotrh, than, zbyszek
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	x86_64
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	faad2-2.11.2-5.fc44 faad2-2.11.2-5.fc43	Doc Type:	---
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	2418955
Clones:	2418958 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2025-12-06 09:41:23 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Mark Pearson 2025-12-04 21:44:40 UTC

Doing open source compliance review for Lenovo's Fedora 43 WS preload and found that faad2-libs package does not have a licence in /usr/share/licences.

Looking at the spec file, it seems the licenses are all in the faad2 package - which is not in the default install image.
Can the Licence file be added to the faad2-libs part of the spec file please?

Let me know if there's anything I can help with

Thanks
Mark

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install Fedora 43 Workstation edition
2. Confirm faad2-libs is installed by default
3. Confirm faad2-libs is not under /usr/share/licences

Comment 1 Fabio Valentini 2025-12-04 22:04:23 UTC

I can confirm - looks like the LICENSE file should actually be in the -libs subpackage. 
License files MUST get installed if *any* subset of the built packages are installed, and this is currently not the case here.

Not sure why you marked this bug as blocking / depending on a bunch of what look like similar (but unrelated) issues in other packages?

Comment 2 Mark Pearson 2025-12-05 00:20:23 UTC

Sorry - my bad... I created the initial bug and then just cloned it and didn't realise it carried those along (there are about 8 packages in total that have this issue)
I'll go and clean up. Apologies for the extra noise!
Mark

Comment 3 Fedora Update System 2025-12-06 08:52:47 UTC

FEDORA-2025-1a9fbdce98 (faad2-2.11.2-5.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-1a9fbdce98

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2025-12-06 08:53:01 UTC

FEDORA-2025-b86ae73f5d (faad2-2.11.2-5.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b86ae73f5d

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2025-12-06 09:41:23 UTC

FEDORA-2025-1a9fbdce98 (faad2-2.11.2-5.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2025-12-07 01:10:27 UTC

FEDORA-2025-b86ae73f5d has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-b86ae73f5d`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-b86ae73f5d

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2025-12-09 00:54:00 UTC

FEDORA-2025-b86ae73f5d (faad2-2.11.2-5.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.