Bug 452454

Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-Rijndael - Crypt::CBC compliant Rijndael encryption module
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Nigel Jones <dev>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Jason Tibbitts <j>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, mastahnke, notting
Target Milestone: ---Flags: j: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: 1.06-2.fc9 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-07-15 12:13:04 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:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 452450    

Description Nigel Jones 2008-06-23 03:05:13 UTC
Spec URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/perl-Crypt-Rijndael.spec
SRPM URL: http://dev.nigelj.com/SRPMS/perl-Crypt-Rijndael-1.06-1.fc9.src.rpm
Description: 
This module implements the Rijndael cipher, which has just been selected as
the Advanced Encryption Standard.

Comment 2 Jason Tibbitts 2008-06-25 00:26:06 UTC
Wow, I could swear that I typed in a bunch of information but somehow it was
lost.  Crap.  Let me see if I can remember what I wrote.

This package seems quite confused about its license.

Makefile.PL says "gpl".
META.yml says "gpl".
COPYING includes a copy of the LGPL (v2).
README says "GNU Public License".  Note that there's no such thing.
Rijndael.pm also says "GNU Public License", but then refers to the COPYING file.
_rijndael.c says LGPLv2+.
rijndael.h also says LGPLv2+.

And the spec has LGPLv2 only.

I'm pretty sure that things are really LGPLv2+ and the authors are just a bit
confused about what to call it, but it would be a good idea to check with them
and perhaps get them to clarify.

Anyway, that's the only issue I see here.  I'll go ahead and approve this with
the license tag changed to LGPLv2+ and in the unlikely event that's not what the
authors intended you can fix it up at that time.

* source files match upstream:
  f319f8ba16884759e8d2353d7dfcd8cabcc2a0bd39a8f4613b8fe43beef1623f  
   Crypt-Rijndael-1.06.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 doesn't seem to match the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* 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:
   Rijndael.so()(64bit)
   perl(Crypt::Rijndael) = 1.06
   perl-Crypt-Rijndael = 1.06-2.fc10
  =
   perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.10.0)
   perl(DynaLoader)
   perl(Test::Manifest) >= 1.14
   perl(Test::More)
   perl(strict)
   perl(vars)
   perl(warnings)

* %check is present and all tests pass:
   All tests successful.
   Files=11, Tests=121,  0 wallclock secs ( 0.34 cusr +  0.06 csys =  0.40 CPU)
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no scriptlets present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc 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

Comment 3 Nigel Jones 2008-06-25 02:38:30 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Wow, I could swear that I typed in a bunch of information but somehow it was
> lost.  Crap.  Let me see if I can remember what I wrote.
> 
> This package seems quite confused about its license.
> 
> Makefile.PL says "gpl".
> META.yml says "gpl".
> COPYING includes a copy of the LGPL (v2).
> README says "GNU Public License".  Note that there's no such thing.
> Rijndael.pm also says "GNU Public License", but then refers to the COPYING file.
> _rijndael.c says LGPLv2+.
> rijndael.h also says LGPLv2+.
> 
> And the spec has LGPLv2 only.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that things are really LGPLv2+ and the authors are just a bit
> confused about what to call it, but it would be a good idea to check with them
> and perhaps get them to clarify.
Nice spotting, I'll fix this now.
> APPROVED
Thank you

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: perl-Crypt-Rijndael
Short Description: Crypt::CBC compliant Rijndael encryption module
Owners: nigelj
Branches: F-8 F-9 EL-4 EL-5
InitialCC: perl-sig
Cvsextras Commits: yes


Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2008-06-25 02:49:17 UTC
cvs done.

Comment 5 Michael Stahnke 2008-07-09 21:31:38 UTC
Nigel, can you submit these builds and updates to koji/plague/bodhi?  That way
the spacewalk team can try building against this and hopefully remove this rpm
source from their git tree. 

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2008-07-11 14:03:18 UTC
perl-Crypt-Rijndael-1.06-2.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2008-07-11 14:03:37 UTC
perl-Crypt-Rijndael-1.06-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2008-07-15 12:13:02 UTC
perl-Crypt-Rijndael-1.06-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2008-07-15 12:16:35 UTC
perl-Crypt-Rijndael-1.06-2.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.