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@xxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776, 177841, 182173 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From ed@xxxxxxx 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review