[Bug 2224783] Review Request: dragonbox - Reference implementation of Dragonbox in C++

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2224783

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
             Status|NEW                         |POST

--- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek  ---
With the latest changes, the review is trivial:

+ package name is OK
+ latest version
+ license is acceptable for Fedora (Apache-2.0 and change)
- license is specified correctly
  (see below)
+ builds and installs OK
+ BR/R/P look reasonable
> License: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception AND BSL-1.0

Shouldn't this be "OR" instead? Both files that are in the binary package
have the same header that says "Alternatively, the contents of this file may be
used under
the terms of the BSL".

Please add a comment how the license is derived.

I don't think this makes any difference in practice, so the
package is APPROVED.