bacula was identified as a package possibly needing maintainer attention due to the F-20 unversioned doc dir change. The identification is not foolproof, it is basically this grep: grep -E "(/doc|_docdir|_defaultdocdir).+version" *.spec Please review your package and make the appropriate changes, if any. A good starting point is checking the lines output by the above grep for your specfile. For the vast majority of packages, after the changes, the expected outcome is that documentation dirs in /usr/share/doc should no longer contain the package version. More information and tips: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UnversionedDocdirs http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/183942/focus=183943 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/183942/focus=183973
Just did a couple of rebuilds this morning and I can confirm bacula it is not affected. Sample f20 build, unversioned docdir: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=454434 Same build for f19, versioned docdir: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=454436 All documents in Bacula are simply added with %doc in the files section. Regards, --Simone
The -console-bat subpackage still uses versioned doc dir. Looking at the grep lines as suggested would have revealed this pretty easily... http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=4304337
Oops, sorry, I missed that. Looking at it I also noticed that the license file is not always present on the hard drive with a subselection of packages installed.
OK fixed it, rebuilding it now. This also exposed the fact that bat was using files in %_docdir for runtime; so I will push an update also for f18/f19. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/bacula.git/commit/?id=65662da44842095629b8bc1d7015ee0f718abf5a Regards, --Simone