Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 168580
Review Request: perl-Crypt-DES
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:13 EST
Spec Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Crypt-DES/
SRPM Name or Url: http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Crypt-DES-2.03-2.src.rpm
Description: DES encryption module.
I should note that the license on this is not a standard open-source license,
but it looks BSD-ish to me.
- rpmlint nearly clean; see below
- package and spec naming OK
- package meets guidelines
- license looks BSD-ish to me but see below
- license text included in package
- spec file written in English and is legible
- sources match upstream
- package builds OK in FC4 and in mock for rawhide (i386)
- BR's OK
- no locales, libraries, subpackages or pkgconfigs to worry about
- not relocatable
- no unowned directories or file permission problems
- no duplicate files
- %clean section present and correct
- macro usage is consistent
- no large docs, docs don't affect runtime
- code, not content
- no desktop entry needed
- no scriptlets
- I don't think the rpath-fixing editing out of LD_RUN_PATH from the Makefile
is necessary for Fedora Extras packages (not since FC2 according to
- Why the manual dep on perl(Crypt::CBC)? I can understand the BuildRequire
for this (needed for the test suite), but not the runtime dep.
- License looks BSD-ish to me too, but I'm not a licensing expert and would
appreciate it if someone more knowledgable on this gave it a look. You can
shut rpmlint up by changing the License: tag to "BSD-style".
- Why not use:
in the files list?
Hi Paul, I agree that the license may be problematic. I think everything
about the license is OK (doesn't voilate any Fedora guidelines) except the
part about advertising:
"3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed by Systemics Ltd
which is annoying. The key question seems to be: would simply listing
this package in a Fedora Extras repository constitute "advertisement"
and thus trigger the clause above? I think not, but IANAL. Or would
listing this package as part of a Fedora release notes trigger the
clause? Maybe or maybe not.
This really ought to be reviewed by Fedora legal or perhaps the SC.
Could you please contact them?
Wait, I've made a silly mistake! Please ignore comment #3 above. I'm now
quite certain that the license is OK and heres the logic:
1) comparing them line-by-line, its obviously the "original BSD license" as
2) according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Legal
the original BSD is clearly one of the OK licenses for Fedora Extras
Ping Steven; this package is holding up a few others that depend on it...
This one's nearly ready to go, and is a dep of some other packages just imported
into CVS; I'm just waiting on responses to comment #2 ...
* Thu Feb 02 2006 Steven Pritchard <firstname.lastname@example.org> 2.05-1
- Update to 2.05.
- Drop explicit Requires: perl(Crypt::CBC).
- LD_RUN_PATH hack shouldn't be needed now.
- Trim file list a bit.
- License is BSD, more or less.
- still rpmlint clean
- package builds OK in mock for FC5 (i386)
- all queries raised in Comment #2 now addressed