https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381
--- Comment #15 from Clément DAVID c.david86@gmail.com --- Hi gil,
I update the spec and srpm file to fix the %{?dist} issue.
Issues: =======
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. Note: Cannot find licenses in rpm(s)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
LICENSE.txt is present as %doc in the main package and sub-packages
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShor...
A comment is present which clarify this thing accordingly to the guidelines.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (jogl-v2.0-rc10.tar.7z)
Renamed to provide both jogl and jogl2 packages.