Drop second copy of LICENSE file?

[Tadej Janež]

Hey,

I've noticed that python3-pypdf includes the LICENSE 2 times:
$ rpm -q --licensefiles python3-pypdf
/usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/pypdf-6.16.1.dist-
info/licenses/LICENSE
/usr/share/licenses/python3-pypdf/LICENSE

This is due to including it both via %pyproject_save_files macro and
manually via the '%license LICENSE' line:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pypdf/blob/5244ee1de1ad01cb3759e7a...

Originally, it needed to be manually added because it was not pulled in
automatically by the build backend:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...

Is it correct to drop the '%license LICENSE' now and ensure a LICENSE
file is present via '%pyproject_save_files --assert-license'?

See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pypdf/pull-request/4

Thanks and regards,
Tadej

[Miro Hrončok]

On 20. 08. 26 18:51, Tadej Janež via python-devel wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I've noticed that python3-pypdf includes the LICENSE 2 times:
> $ rpm -q --licensefiles python3-pypdf
> /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/pypdf-6.16.1.dist-
> info/licenses/LICENSE
> /usr/share/licenses/python3-pypdf/LICENSE
>
> This is due to including it both via %pyproject_save_files macro and
> manually via the '%license LICENSE' line:
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pypdf/blob/5244ee1de1ad01cb3759e7a...
>
> Originally, it needed to be manually added because it was not pulled in
> automatically by the build backend:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]...
>
> Is it correct to drop the '%license LICENSE' now and ensure a LICENSE
> file is present via '%pyproject_save_files --assert-license'?
>
> See https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-pypdf/pull-request/4

Yes.

I was about to add: Unless you need to build the same specfile on some old 
version of Fedora or RHEL that might not have flit-core new enough to support 
this. But worst case scenario is that it would fail to build, not ship without 
a license.

However, the package already BuildRequires python3dist(flit-core) >= 3.11 and 
hence it would fail with older flit-core anyway. AFAIK flit-core 3.11 is 
exactly the version that added this functionality, based on 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2350107

So yes, unconditionally.

[Tadej Janež]

On Thu, 2026-08-20 at 20:34 +0200, Miro Hrončok via python-devel wrote:
> Yes.
>
> I was about to add: Unless you need to build the same specfile on
> some old 
> version of Fedora or RHEL that might not have flit-core new enough to
> support 
> this. But worst case scenario is that it would fail to build, not
> ship without 
> a license.
>
> However, the package already BuildRequires python3dist(flit-core) >=
> 3.11 and 
> hence it would fail with older flit-core anyway. AFAIK flit-core 3.11
> is 
> exactly the version that added this functionality, based on 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/2350107
>
> So yes, unconditionally.

Thanks for the explanation and PR review!

Best,
Tadej