Bug 168580 - Review Request: perl-Crypt-DES
Review Request: perl-Crypt-DES
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Paul Howarth
David Lawrence
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT 168583 175281
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-09-17 11:17 EDT by Steven Pritchard
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:11 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-02-02 21:41:33 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Steven Pritchard 2005-09-17 11:17:57 EDT
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.
Comment 1 Steven Pritchard 2005-09-17 11:33:10 EDT
I should note that the license on this is not a standard open-source license,
but it looks BSD-ish to me.
Comment 2 Paul Howarth 2005-10-10 06:17:06 EDT

- 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:
  rather than:
  in the files list?
Comment 3 Ed Hill 2005-12-13 11:11:22 EST
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?
Comment 4 Ed Hill 2005-12-13 14:16:17 EST
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
   described at:
2) according to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#Legal
   the original BSD is clearly one of the OK licenses for Fedora Extras
Comment 5 Paul Howarth 2006-01-04 11:59:08 EST
Ping Steven; this package is holding up a few others that depend on it...
Comment 6 Paul Howarth 2006-01-26 17:49:49 EST
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 ...
Comment 7 Steven Pritchard 2006-02-02 09:50:41 EST

* Thu Feb 02 2006 Steven Pritchard <steve@kspei.com> 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.
Comment 8 Paul Howarth 2006-02-02 11:08:24 EST

- still rpmlint clean
- package builds OK in mock for FC5 (i386)
- all queries raised in Comment #2 now addressed


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.