https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120883 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wright from comment #2) > Do you have any suggestions on how to best accomplish that? It looks like > vorta upstream has mucked with all the files names so it'd be no easy task > to rely on FA or to maintain it. > > Perhaps long term I can ask upstream if they'll use the stock FA > names/directory structure so that we can do just this. > > I added the appropriate license to the License tag. I took a look at the icons. The names actually match (mostly) those in the fontawesome5-fonts-web package, but it looks like they've taken icons from different versions of FontAwesome. I found some from version 5.x, some from 6.x, and some I can't tell, so maybe they're from 4.x. Who can tell? I guess bundling them for now is what you'll have to do. This package is APPROVED. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2120883 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
