Bug 364241

Summary:	Review Request: dash - Small and fast POSIX-compliant shell
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Warren Togami <wtogami>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	fedora-package-review, notting
Target Milestone:	---	Flags:	j: fedora-review+ wtogami: fedora-cvs+
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2007-11-07 05:08:11 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Warren Togami 2007-11-02 16:55:55 UTC

Spec URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/dash.spec
SRPM URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/dash-0.5.4-1.fc8.src.rpm
Description:
DASH is a POSIX-compliant implementation of /bin/sh that aims to be as small as
possible. It does this without sacrificing speed where possible. In fact, it is
significantly faster than bash (the GNU Bourne-Again SHell) for most tasks.

Comment 1 Jason Tibbitts 2007-11-03 19:05:40 UTC

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.

Comment 2 Warren Togami 2007-11-07 04:56:15 UTC

I'm moving dash from /usr/bin/ to just /bin/ so it is a little safer as a
/bin/sh replacement for people who want to experiment with boot performance.  See 
http://wtogami.livejournal.com/20047.html