I should note that the license on this is not a standard open-source license,
but it looks BSD-ish to me.

Review:

- 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

Queries:

- 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
  http://koti.welho.com/vskytta/packagers-handbook/packagers-handbook.html)

- 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:
  %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Crypt/
  rather than:
  %{perl_vendorarch}/auto/
  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 
      (http://www.systemics.com/)"

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
   described at:
   http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
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 ...

http://ftp.kspei.com/pub/steve/rpms/perl-Crypt-DES-2.05-1.src.rpm

* Thu Feb 02 2006 Steven Pritchard <steve> 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.

OK:

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

Approved.