[Bug 182173] Review Request: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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: eterm - a color vt102 terminal emulator

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=182173

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |163779
              nThis|                            |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-10-01 23:22 EST -------
Hi Terje, the license issue does appear to be cleaned up.  The
no-money one is gone but the LGPL-ed bits remain.  I'm no lawyer
but it seems OK to link together the LGPL-ed parts with BSD code.

There are some suspicious bits such as:

1) literally hundreds of "pointer targets ... differ in signedness"
    warnings which are worrisome but perhaps ignorable

2) there appear to be some missing BuildRequires and/or some missing
    functionality such as:

checking for Etwin support...
        checking for Tw_Open in -lTw... no
      configure: WARNING: *** Twin support has been
        disabled because libTw was not found ***

and I think libXmu-devel needs to be a BR since I don't see how it
    gets pulled in by any of the other BRs.  Please take a look.

In any case, the remaining review items are:

+ source matches upstream
 + license now appears to be OK and is correctly included
 + builds on FC5 i386
 + rpmlint reports no errors or warnings
 + package and spec naming OK
 + spec is legible
 + builds on FC5 i386
 + no locales
 + shared libs OK
 + not relocatable
 + dir ownership looks good
 + no file dupes
 + permissions OK
 + has %clean
 + consistent use of macros
 + code not content (although there are a number of background
   pixmaps that could be split off into a separate package if
   one desires)
 + docs are small and not needed for execution
 + no static, *.la, or devel libs
 + no headers or pkgconfig
 + has desktop file with desktop-file-install which appears sane

It'll be easy enough to sort out the BuildRequires with mock as soon
as libast is in Extras so we can leave that for later.

And I don't see any remaining blockers so its APPROVED.