Bug 452454
Summary: | Review Request: perl-Crypt-Rijndael - Crypt::CBC compliant Rijndael encryption module | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Nigel Jones <dev> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | 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-1.06-2.fc9.src.rpm Forgot a Build Req 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 (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 cvs done. 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. perl-Crypt-Rijndael-1.06-2.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8 perl-Crypt-Rijndael-1.06-2.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9 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. 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. |