Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182175
ed@eh3.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841, 182173 |163779 nThis| |
------- Additional Comments From ed@eh3.com 2006-10-01 22:16 EST ------- Hi Terje, heres another review of the latest version:
sha1sum: b2a70e12f25099c4565f54fae7a25e66e478a22f libast-0.7.1-0.1.20060818cvs.src.rpm
+ rpmlint reports: "W: libast-devel no-documentation" which can be safely ignored + spec file name and package name OK + license OK and correctly included + spec is legible and looks sane + source appears to match upstream (pulled from CVS) + builds in mock for FC5 i386 + no locale(s) + shared lib handling looks OK + no *.la or *.a + not relocatable + dir ownership OK + no duplicate files + permissions look OK + clean OK + macros look OK + code not content + no large docs + no runtime doc dependencies + correct use of -devel
There were a few warnings during the compile [mostly, ignored return types and pointer type mismatches] but I don't see any actual blockers. This is somewhat redundant (since Jochen already approved in comment #10 but he is not currently a sponsor):
APPROVED.
So if you haven't already been sponsored then please go ahead and request sponsorship and I'll approve it.
And I'll look at the updated Eterm submission next...