Description: ------------ Fedora Packaging Guidelines requires that each RPM includes the LICENSE file, when provided by upstream, and to request for it when missing. So I do. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Please add the file, with role="doc" in the official tarball

Sorry to have not report this early.... Probably don't worth a new release, as this mostly concern packaging in linux distribution, as far as the file is present in the SVN, we can pull it from there, until next release. A good practice is also to run unit test during the packaging. So please also add the tests folder in the archive (with role="test") Thanks

Is it not feasible to use the <license uri="http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt">PHP License 3.01</license> tag to pull the document for packaging?

From PHP License "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice" "Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice" So, by license statement, you MUST provide this file. I'm not a lawyer, but As far as I understand explanation written by Fedora/RedHat lawyer : "Common licenses that require including their texts with all derivative works include ASL 2.0, EPL, BSD and MIT. Packagers should point out to upstream that by not including a proper full license text, they are making it difficult or impossible for anyone to comply with their desired license terms. " I extend this statement to PHP License which is a BSD derivative

This bug has been fixed in SVN. If this was a documentation problem, the fix will appear on pear.php.net by the end of next Sunday (CET). If this was a problem with the pear.php.net website, the change should be live shortly. Otherwise, the fix will appear in the package's next release. Thank you for the report and for helping us make PEAR better.