Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 364241
Review Request: dash - Small and fast POSIX-compliant shell
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:12:21 EST
Spec URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/dash.spec
SRPM URL: http://togami.com/~warren/fedora/dash-0.5.4-1.fc8.src.rpm
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.
Source0: should be a URL if possible; I changed it to
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
* source files match upstream:
* 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.
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