https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1998821 --- Comment #2 from js-fedora@xxxxxx --- Thank you for the review, really appreciated! The license is definitely the elephant in the room. I completley missed the non-free graphics, sorry! So thank you for pointing that out! Given that addressing any issues in the spec file doesn't make sense if the liccense situation cannot be fixed, I didn't do that for now and raised an issue with upstream about the license instead: https://github.com/8bitbubsy/ft2-clone/issues/23 Luckily, this seems to only affect ft2-clone and not pt2-clone (#1998755), though it also contains graphics. But I could not find anything indicating it would contain unfree graphics. How would you prefer to handle this bug in the meantime? Should it be closed until the license situation is fixed with upstream and then a new bug be created, or should it be left open until upstream responded? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ 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
