Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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