https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1913870 --- Comment #22 from Otto Urpelainen <oturpe@xxxxxx> --- I noticed that upstream has already merged the fix for licenses path that used multiple project_license entries [1]. On the other front, my pull request to appstream-glib to validate that multiples are not present has been merged [2]. I corrected the situation by submitting a new fix for qvge [3]. It also adds the license for qtpropertybrowser like I suggested. Let us see what upstream thinks of this. [1]: https://github.com/ArsMasiuk/qvge/commit/017914914a7d8a4c29dae3a4dcbcf9802429a35d [2]: https://github.com/hughsie/appstream-glib/pull/402 [3]: https://github.com/ArsMasiuk/qvge/pull/152 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
