Bug 613705

Summary:	foomatic-db-ppds subpackage must also include a copy of license text
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6	Reporter:	Jiri Popelka <jpopelka>
Component:	foomatic-db	Assignee:	Zdenek Dohnal <zdohnal>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Desktop QE <desktop-qa-list>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	6.1	CC:	ovasik, rvokal, thozza, tpelka, twoerner
Target Milestone:	rc	Keywords:	EasyFix, FastFix
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	foomatic-db-4.0-8.20091126.el6	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2017-03-21 10:05:54 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:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1373253

Description Jiri Popelka 2010-07-12 15:48:42 UTC

COPYING file is only included in base package, i.e. foomatic-db.
According to Fedora Licensing Guidelines
the -ppds subpackage must also include a copy of license text.


From
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138487.html
Q. My package generates a foo and foo-libs package. foo has the license
files, and foo depends on foo-libs, but foo-libs doesn't have any
license files in it. What should I do?
A. You have two options here. You can either move the license texts from
foo to foo-libs or duplicate the license texts in both packages. Moving
the license texts is an acceptable option in this case because it
ensures that if foo-libs is installed, the license texts are present,
and if foo is installed, it will pull in foo-libs, thus, the license
texts are present.



Additional info:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138487.html
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-July/138546.html
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2010-July/460714.html

Comment 3 Suzanne Logcher 2011-02-15 21:40:17 UTC

This issue was proposed for RHEL 6.1 FasTrack but did not get resolved in time.
It has been moved to RHEL 6.2 FasTrack.

Comment 5 Suzanne Logcher 2011-02-15 22:03:48 UTC

This issue was proposed for RHEL 6.1 FasTrack but did not get resolved in time.
It has been moved to RHEL 6.2 FasTrack.

Comment 9 RHEL Program Management 2012-07-10 05:48:18 UTC

This request was not resolved in time for the current release.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in
the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Comment 10 RHEL Program Management 2012-07-10 23:13:38 UTC

This request was erroneously removed from consideration in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4, which is currently under development.  This request will be evaluated for inclusion in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6.4.

Comment 22 errata-xmlrpc 2017-03-21 10:05:54 UTC

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2017-0649.html