[Bug 498285] New: Review Request: mozilla-adblockplus - Adblocking extension for Mozilla Firefox
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Apr 29 18:00:55 UTC 2009
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mozilla-adblockplus - Adblocking extension for Mozilla Firefox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498285
Summary: Review Request: mozilla-adblockplus - Adblocking
extension for Mozilla Firefox
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: andreas at bawue.net
QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org
CC: notting at redhat.com, fedora-package-review at redhat.com
Estimated Hours: 0.0
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/mozilla-adblockplus/mozilla-adblockplus.spec
SRPM URL:
http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/mozilla-adblockplus/mozilla-adblockplus-1.0.2-1.fc7.src.rpm
Description:
Adblock Plus is a content-filtering extension for the Mozilla Firefox- and
Mozilla Application Suite-based web browsers. Adblock Plus allows users to
prevent page elements, such as advertisements, from being downloaded and
displayed.
It features improvements to the user interface, filter subscriptions, and
element hiding over the original Adblock extesion.
rpmlint complains a bit:
mozilla-adblockplus.i386: W: no-documentation
mozilla-adblockplus.i386: E: no-binary
mozilla-adblockplus.i386: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
These errors are ignorable. Normally this extension would better be packed as a
noarch rpm as no architecture specific binaries are included. This is not
possible however due to the use of /usr/lib and /usr/lib64 by the
mozilla-filesystem rpm, which is arch specific.
Documentation: There's none, there is only a webpage...
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list