[Bug 364241] Review Request: dash - Small and fast POSIX-compliant shell

[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: dash - Small and fast POSIX-compliant shell


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=364241


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-11-03 15:05 EST -------
Source0: should be a URL if possible; I changed it to 
http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/dash/files/dash-%{version}.tar.gz and
everything seems fine.

GPL+ in the License: tag seems a little odd for two reasons.  The source file in
question is clearly GPLv2+, but also it is simply a C file that gets compiled
and run as part of its build process and then its output is used in the
resulting executable.  I am no expert here, but my understanding of things is
that this does not put any part of the resulting executable under GPL.  Since
the accepted interpretation of the License: tag is that it applies to the binary
package in isolation, I don't think the GPL makes it into the final package at all.

I checked with spot on IRC and he concurs.  So your License: tag can just be BSD.

The only remaining complaint I have about this package is that the manpage says
"sh", not "dash".  Seems a bit odd to see "sh is the standard command
interpreter for the system"; while that's true, this manpage doesn't describe
that sh.

Review:
* source files match upstream:
   a9dc8f0237f632dd2c1bfeff80b1052e75fafaef0d767e3beab0bd8becced623  
   dash-0.5.4.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
X license field needs a tweak.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
  I tested this package manually and it seems to work fine.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* doesn't create or own any directories.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

APPROVED; just tweak the License: tag when you check in.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.