Bug 173548

Summary: Review Request: xfce4-modemlights-plugin
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: kevin, luya256, wtogami
Target Milestone: ---Flags: kevin: fedora-cvs-
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: http://xfce-goodies.berlios.de/
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2005-12-17 02:41:07 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 163779, 392981    

Description Christoph Wickert 2005-11-18 01:37:16 UTC
Spec Name or Url: 
http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras-review/SPECS/xfce4-modemlights-plugin.spec
SRPM Name or Url:
http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras-review/SRPMS/xfce4-modemlights-plugin-0.1.1-2.fc4.src.rpm
Description:
A Xfce4 panel applet intended to simplify establishing a ppp connection via a modem.

Comments:
rpmlint is clean
License GPL and included

Comment 1 Christoph Wickert 2005-12-01 13:29:07 UTC
- Add libxfcegui4-devel BuildReqs.
- Fix %defattr.

New SRPM:
http://home.arcor.de/christoph.wickert/fedora/extras-review/SRPMS/xfce4-modemlights-plugin-0.1.1-3.fc4.src.rpm

Comment 2 Luya Tshimbalanga 2005-12-05 06:56:46 UTC
Set to FE-ACCEPT

Comment 3 Christoph Wickert 2007-11-20 00:03:45 UTC
xfce-modemlights-plugin has been ported to Xfce 4.4, so I'd like to unorphan
this package. We need new branches for everything after FC-5/Xfce 4.2.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: xfce4-modemlights-plugin
New Branches: FC-6 F-7 F-8

Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2007-11-20 18:43:48 UTC
Since it's been more than 3 months since this was orphaned, 
according to the guidelines it should be re-reviewed. 

Can you post a updated package to review? I would be happy to do so.