[Bug 452454] Review Request: perl-Crypt-Rijndael - Crypt::CBC compliant Rijndael encryption module

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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 at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  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.