Description of problem: When running fedora-review on a package that uses the new %license tag, fedora-review complains: - 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 LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text And also: [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses All of these message disappear if the license file is moved to %doc. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): fedora-review-0.5.1-2.fc20.noarch How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Review a package that uses %license 2. 3. Actual results: The incorrect messages shown above. Expected results: Golden silence. Additional info:
Increasing severity in view of https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/411
You are right, although, saw the last comment on that ticket ?
Right I did - it is approved but seems FPC is not always so quick to update the wiki.
This is fixed in the devel branch at fedorahosted. Alternatively, someone could use the following line to prevent an error: %{!?_licensedir:%global license %%doc}