[Bug 182175] Review Request: libast - handy routines and drop-in substitutes for some good-but-non-portable functions (needed by eterm)

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at eh3.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841, 182173      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From ed at 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...

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.