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(a)math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)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.

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 wtogami(a)redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Flag| |fedora-cvs+ -- 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.