Bug 2216595

Taking this review

Running fedora-review against the f38 chroot for this due to https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/122#issuecomment-1602115622

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "zlib License", "Public domain", "BSD
     3-Clause License". 558 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /tmp/2216595-nanopb/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-
     packages/proto(python3-proto-plus), /usr/lib/python3.11/site-
     packages/proto/__pycache__(python3-proto-plus)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
     process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
     provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Packages MUST NOT have dependencies (either build-time or runtime) on
     packages named with the unversioned python- prefix unless no properly
     versioned package exists. Dependencies on Python packages instead MUST
     use names beginning with python2- or python3- as appropriate.
[x]: Python packages must not contain %{pythonX_site(lib|arch)}/* in %files
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nanopb-0.4.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          nanopb-devel-0.4.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          nanopb-tools-0.4.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          nanopb-python3-0.4.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          nanopb-debuginfo-0.4.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          nanopb-debugsource-0.4.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
          nanopb-0.4.7-1.fc38.src.rpm
=================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9czrdqbx')]
checks: 31, packages: 7

nanopb-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nanopb_generator.py
nanopb-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary protoc-gen-nanopb
nanopb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nanopb-python3.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nanopb-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nanopb-python3.x86_64: E: no-binary
nanopb-tools.x86_64: E: no-binary
==================== 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s ====================




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: nanopb-debuginfo-0.4.7-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm
=================================================== rpmlint session starts ===================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp0c8345bj')]
checks: 31, packages: 1

==================== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ====================





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 6

nanopb-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nanopb_generator.py
nanopb-tools.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary protoc-gen-nanopb
nanopb-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nanopb-tools.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nanopb-python3.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nanopb-tools.x86_64: E: no-binary
nanopb-python3.x86_64: E: no-binary
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/nanopb/nanopb/archive/0.4.7/nanopb-0.4.7.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e1d89b166367a3c42d42311bdc2ed57ff78f86aede9a66828516e45490d48c81
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e1d89b166367a3c42d42311bdc2ed57ff78f86aede9a66828516e45490d48c81


Requires
--------
nanopb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

nanopb-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libprotobuf-nanopb.so.0()(64bit)
    nanopb(x86-64)

nanopb-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/python3
    nanopb(x86-64)

nanopb-python3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nanopb(x86-64)
    python(abi)

nanopb-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

nanopb-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
nanopb:
    libprotobuf-nanopb.so.0()(64bit)
    nanopb
    nanopb(x86-64)

nanopb-devel:
    cmake(nanopb)
    nanopb-devel
    nanopb-devel(x86-64)

nanopb-tools:
    nanopb-tools
    nanopb-tools(x86-64)

nanopb-python3:
    nanopb-python3
    nanopb-python3(x86-64)
    python3-nanopb

nanopb-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    libprotobuf-nanopb.so.0-0.4.7-1.fc38.x86_64.debug()(64bit)
    nanopb-debuginfo
    nanopb-debuginfo(x86-64)

nanopb-debugsource:
    nanopb-debugsource
    nanopb-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2216595 -m fedora-38-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64
Active plugins: Python, Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, fonts, Java, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Only thing of notice is:

[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-
     packages/proto(python3-proto-plus), /usr/lib/python3.11/site-
     packages/proto/__pycache__(python3-proto-plus)

You'll want to investigate this and potentially add conflicts between the packages or make one depend on the other. These rpmbuild errors are weird:

nanopb-python3.x86_64: E: no-binary
nanopb-tools.x86_64: E: no-binary

as these packages do ship binaries, not sure what these are about. Finally, the Python subpackage is named `nanopb-python3`, while I believe the convention is to name these `python3-nanopb`. You are providing the latter name anyway, so I don't think this is an issue in practice.

> [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>      Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-
>      packages/proto(python3-proto-plus), /usr/lib/python3.11/site-
>      packages/proto/__pycache__(python3-proto-plus)

The nanopb-python3 package built by cmake caused the conflict with python-proto-plus package.

Ref: https://github.com/nanopb/nanopb/issues/845#issuecomment-1408241738

After looking at the extra/poetry/poetry_build.sh file, https://github.com/nanopb/nanopb/blob/master/extra/poetry/poetry_build.sh, I used some commands in that file to build nanopb-python3 package.

SPEC URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nanopb.spec
SRPM URL: https://topazus.fedorapeople.org/rpms/nanopb-0.4.7-1.fc39.src.rpm

koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=102546275

Thanks for following up with upstream on the conflict. This looks good to me now, APPROVED.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nanopb

So many thanks for your work on reviewing this package.

FEDORA-2023-002855d99d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-002855d99d

FEDORA-2023-002855d99d has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.