Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0 on a still to be determined date in the near future. The original upgrade date has been delayed.
Bug 237331 - Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for Random Number support
Review Request: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random -- Perl OpenSSL bindings for Rando...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jason Tibbitts
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
Blocks: 237334
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-04-20 16:33 EDT by Wes Hardaker
Modified: 2008-06-16 16:52 EDT (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-05-24 11:52:03 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tibbs: fedora‑review+
dennis: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Wes Hardaker 2007-04-20 16:33:10 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random.spec
Description:  A Perl wrapper around OpenSSL's Random number generation library.

(I don't currently have a sponsor, although there are other packages
I've submitted as well tagged as needing a sponsor as well).
Comment 2 Wes Hardaker 2007-05-08 16:57:17 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random-0.03-2.src.rpm

- Add BuildRequire openssl-devel
- Don't manually require openssl
- Use vendorarch instead of vendorlib
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2007-05-09 20:29:47 EDT
Buildrequires: perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker) is needed to cope with the perl-devel
split.  I don't see any other requirements in Makefile.PL or the test suite.

However, there's one very significant problem with this package: I can find no
statement of the license anywhere.  You've indicated "GPL or Artistic"; I'm
curious where that comes from.  Unfortunately packages with no license
statements are simply not acceptable as-is; we at least need an email from the
author indicating the license the package is under.

* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
? license field matches the actual license.
? license is open source-compatible.
* license text not included upstream.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
* package installs properly
* debuginfo package looks complete.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   perl(Crypt::OpenSSL::Random) = 0.03
   perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random = 0.03-2.fc7

* %check is present and all tests pass:
   ok 1
   ok 2
   ok 3
   ok 4

* 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 -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 droppings.
Comment 4 Wes Hardaker 2007-05-14 18:01:56 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random-0.03-3.src.rpm

* Mon May 14 2007  Wes Hardaker <wjhns174@hardakers.net> - 0.03-3
- BuildRequire perl(ExtUtils::MakeMaker)
Comment 5 Wes Hardaker 2007-05-14 20:42:10 EDT
(oh, and I'll work on the license issue)
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2007-05-15 14:28:07 EDT
This package is fine now except for the license issue; it is sufficient to
obtain a simple email from the author stating the license terms (even "same as
Perl" is fine) as long as you include the text of that email in the package as %doc.
Comment 7 Wes Hardaker 2007-05-16 17:05:40 EDT
When I get a response, I'll do so (or better yet...  hopefully he'll republish
it).  thanks for the note about email verification being ok.
Comment 8 Wes Hardaker 2007-05-21 20:13:48 EDT
Spec URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.hardakers.net/FE/perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random-0.04-1.src.rpm

- Update to upstream 0.4 with proper license
Comment 9 Jason Tibbitts 2007-05-22 21:43:28 EDT
Cool.  Now, since there's a license file in the upstream source, it needs to be
included in the package.  Just add "LICENSE" after "%doc Changes" in your %files

Other than that, this package is good to go; I'll go ahead and approve and trust
you to add the LICENSE file when you check in.

Comment 10 Wes Hardaker 2007-05-23 20:18:02 EDT
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random
Short Description: Perl OpenSSL bindings for Random Number support
Owners: wjhns174@hardakers.net
Branches: FC-6 F-7
Comment 11 Tom "spot" Callaway 2007-05-24 11:13:34 EDT
cvs done
Comment 12 Wes Hardaker 2007-05-24 11:52:03 EDT
w00t.  done!
Comment 13 Wes Hardaker 2008-06-16 16:35:31 EDT
Package Change Request
Package Name: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-Random
New Branches: EL-4 EL-5
Comment 14 Dennis Gilmore 2008-06-16 16:52:00 EDT
CVS Done 

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