Spec URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/mozilla-noscript/mozilla-noscript.spec SRPM URL: http://home.bawue.de/~ixs/mozilla-noscript/mozilla-noscript-1.9.6-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: The NoScript Firefox extension provides extra protection for Firefox. It allows JavaScript, Java, Flash and other plugins to be executed only by trusted web sites of your choice (e.g. your online bank) and additionally provides Anti-XSS protection. As usual, rpmline is a bit unhappy: mozilla-noscript.x86_64: E: no-binary mozilla-noscript.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mozilla-noscript.x86_64: W: uncompressed-zip /usr/lib64/mozilla/extensions/{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}/{73a6fe31-595d-460b-a920-fcc0f8843232}/chrome/noscript.jar 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. These should all be okay.
(In reply to comment #0) > > These should all be okay. Hmm, no ;) Just a few comments for now: - Could you explain in the spec what your patch does? - %global better than %define, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define - rpmlint: no-binary error, because there is no binary and your package is *not* noarch. Does it work to make it noarch and install anything into %{_datadir}/mozilla/extensions/ ?? only-non-binary-in-usr-lib warning would be gone with that, too. I don't have the uncompressed-zip warning here (also 64-bit).
Hi Andreas, I'd be happy to review this extension also (I did the mozilla-adblockplus), but I was wondering about the %{_datadir}/mozilla/extensions. I've heard some discussion that that might be a better way to package it since it should be a noarch package. What are your thoughts on this?
Ping, Andreas, any update?
Ping Andreas?
No progress since months -> closing *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 555751 ***