Some initial comments,

1.  subpkgs should have
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

2.  many of the ldconfig scriptlets are not necessary.  Only packages that provide shared libraries (typically anything that matches %{_libdir}/lib*.so.*) require this scriptlet.

3.  what's the purpose of splitting plugins into so many sub-packages? In short, please provide some justification for splitting these out. (Hint: makes the experience for end-user worse having to manually manage plugins).  I'd suggest either getting rid of -plugins subpackages altogether, or at least simplify matters some (maybe keep a single -plugins subpackage for all of them).

(In reply to comment #1)
> Some initial comments,
> 
> 1.  subpkgs should have
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

Not mandatory. Plugins need just API, that is fixed for version.
So - juffed can be repackaged independently from plugins anf they will work - if version is same.
In theory...
I'm not sure :-) - need testing.

> 3.  what's the purpose of splitting plugins into so many sub-packages? In
> short, please provide some justification for splitting these out. (Hint:
> makes the experience for end-user worse having to manually manage plugins). 
> I'd suggest either getting rid of -plugins subpackages altogether, or at
> least simplify matters some (maybe keep a single -plugins subpackage for all
> of them).

* Now all of plugins are in same git as juffed, but it is not mandatory. So - if you will create e.g. juffed-plugin-htmlpreview (not in juffed's git) - you will have juffed[, juffed-plugins] and juffed-plugin-htmlpreview. It is not good, IMHO.
* You can install those plugins that you need - and nothing else, keeping juffed  simpler and faster. As for me - I'd like to install juffed and -plugin-symbolbrowser (sometimes - -sort, -filemanager; occasionally - -doclist and -favorites). So - juffed-plugins is for lazy/fast installation.

1.  this is mandatory per our packaging guidelines, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
when subpackages are produced from the same .spec/srpm

3.  it's a matter of balancing convenience vs minimal features/space.  I'd argue the advantage gained by the splitting here is dwarfed by the increased complexity both in packaging maintenance and end-user burden of having to manage installing plugins.  Ultimately, it's up to.  I'm only offering a minor suggestion to make end-users' lives simpler.

makes more sense when 3. includes "Ultimately, it's up to you"

(In reply to comment #4)
> makes more sense when 3. includes "Ultimately, it's up to you"

Ok - what about "juffed-plugins - for users, juffed-plugin-* - for hackers"?
Or renaming juffed-plugins into juffed-everything/megapack - then user can do just 'yum install juffed-megapack'.
Or 'mv juffed juffed-core; mv juffed-plugins juffed'.

PS. #1 and #2 will be fixed in next rpm release (with FSF address in sources).

This is something like gstreamer-plugin-*

What does this means?

"...E: incorrect-fsf-address ..."

I tried '51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA' (from gpl-2.0.txt) - not helps :-(

(In reply to comment #1)
> 1.  subpkgs should have
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Fixed.

> 2.  many of the ldconfig scriptlets are not necessary.
Fixed.

And some other fixes (see spec changelog).

Spec URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/juffed/juffed.spec
SRPM URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/juffed/juffed-0.10-2.20130330git.fc18.src.rpm

Notes:
1. grep/sed/dos2unix monkeypatches will be removed after git update (and befor bodhi).
2. I don't know what to do with "incorrect-fsf-address". This address is correct: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/

> 2. I don't know what to do with "incorrect-fsf-address". This address is
> correct: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact/

These errors was produced by mock on previously 'installed' juffed rel. 1.
Solved.

3-rd and last (?) release.
All problems solved.

Spec URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/juffed/juffed.spec
SRPM URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/juffed/juffed-0.10-3.fc18.src.rpm

Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5191425
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5191434
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5191452

rpmlint:
bash-4.2$ find ~/rpmbuild -type f -name "juffed*rpm" | grep -v debug | xargs rpmlint
...
16 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

bash-4.2$ rpmlint ~/rpmbuild/SPECS/juffed.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

fedora-review not produces errors (just some warnings).

Please - review this nice thing somebody.

$ rpmlint ~/Projects/fedora-package-review/929425-juffed/srpm/juffed.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


Based on fedora-review
rpmlint
-------
14 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
14 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 30 warnings.

MD5-sum check
-------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/juffed/Releases/0.10/juffed-0.10-1054.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ac58d32acaf9d60e4758e9ae05b1a6b7fc0cb7ecd3b207db769dbb9c747be16c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ac58d32acaf9d60e4758e9ae05b1a6b7fc0cb7ecd3b207db769dbb9c747be16c

All review is clear and this package is ready for acceptance.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: juffed
Short Description: Advanced text editor
Owners: tieugene
Branches: f17 f18 f19
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

juffed-0.10-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/juffed-0.10-3.fc17

juffed-0.10-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/juffed-0.10-3.fc18

Little patch (powered by f19) improved.

Spec URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/juffed/juffed.spec
SRPM URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/juffed/juffed-0.10-4.fc18.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #16)
> Little patch (powered by f19) improved.
> 
> Spec URL: http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/juffed/juffed.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://tieugene.fedorapeople.org/rpms/juffed/juffed-0.10-4.fc18.src.rpm

There is no need for a review anymore now that the package is part of repository. You can close this report as next-release.

It can't be build in f19 without this patch.
But I don't know how to upgrade package during testing in bodhi.

You do new builds and you edit the updates in Bodhi. But in this case you don't have to edit the updates for F17 and F18, just do a new build for F19 and queue that in Bodhi. It will have a higher version, but that's fine because F19 is also the newer release. But you do have to build for Rawhide too.

The rule is: higher Fedora => higher EVR (Epoch-Version-Release).

juffed-0.10-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

juffed-0.10-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/juffed-0.10-4.fc19

juffed-0.10-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

juffed-0.10-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

juffed-0.10-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Why compilation of terminal plugin disabled by default?

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: juffed
Short Description: Advanced text editor
Owners: tieugene
Branches: epel7

Git done (by process-git-requests).

So what about disabled terminal plugin?

(In reply to nucleo from comment #28)
> So what about disabled terminal plugin?

Oops...I forgot about it :-)
Repackaging started.

Can this bug be closed?

* Mon Nov 17 2014 Kalev Lember <kalevlember> 0.10-11
- Disable terminal plugin that doesn't build with new qtermwidget

Latest significant rebuild was done (except a mass rebuild entry) by Rex.

* Mon Apr 20 2015 Rex Dieter <rdieter>
- 0.10-12
- rebuild (qscintilla)
- consolidate cmake fixes (drop -Werror, allow VERBOSE build, fix CXXFLAGS handling)
- %build: drop extraneous -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, use %{?buildterm} (%nil if undefined)
- %install: use 'make install/fast'
- simplify post/postun ldconfig scriptlets

Yes, bodhi must've missed it