Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: perl-Crypt-Rijndael - Crypt::CBC compliant Rijndael encryption module https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452454 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-24 20:26 EST ------- 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 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review