Bug 2049689 - Review Request: python-awscrt - Python bindings for the AWS Common Runtime
Summary: Review Request: python-awscrt - Python bindings for the AWS Common Runtime
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 2179888
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Major Hayden 🤠
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 2049400 2049644
Blocks: 2049808 2078619
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2022-02-02 14:48 UTC by David Duncan
Modified: 2023-03-20 12:14 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2023-03-20 12:14:50 UTC
Type: ---
jkadlcik: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description David Duncan 2022-02-02 14:48:09 UTC
Spec URL: https://davdunc.fedorapeople.org/awscli-2-rpms/python-awscrt.spec
SRPM URL: https://davdunc.fedorapeople.org/awscli-2-rpms/python-awscrt-0.12.6-2.fc35.src.rpm
Description: Python bindings for the AWS Common Runtime
Fedora Account System Username: davdunc

Comment 2 Major Hayden 🤠 2023-03-09 15:14:47 UTC
Sweet. I'll get a look today.

Comment 3 Nikola Forró 2023-03-09 17:46:29 UTC
I've reworked the first patch to (hopefully) make it upstreamable. I'm still not sure I fully understand Fedora crypto policy and if it is really necessary, either way, linking with OpenSSL seems like a better idea than statically linking with AWS-LC.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-awscrt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05619333-python-awscrt/python-awscrt.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-awscrt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05619333-python-awscrt/python-awscrt-0.16.10-1.fc39.src.rpm

Comment 4 Nikola Forró 2023-03-14 10:01:07 UTC
Two downstream patches have been merged upstream and included in a new 0.16.12 release.
I've proposed the OpenSSL patch upstream, let's see if they'll accept it: https://github.com/awslabs/aws-crt-python/pull/454
I've also reported a buffer overflow in aws-c-http that is the cause of test suite crashes on ix86: https://github.com/awslabs/aws-c-http/issues/428

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-awscrt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05635006-python-awscrt/python-awscrt.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-awscrt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05635006-python-awscrt/python-awscrt-0.16.12-1.fc39.src.rpm

Comment 5 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-03-14 21:03:44 UTC
Thank you for the package,

> License:        Apache-2.0

The licensecheck found also:

    *No copyright* OpenSSL License

    BSD 3-Clause License

    BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 2.0

    CMU License

And many different files under many different licenses. Attaching the
whole file, so you can see for yourself. Should we add them to the
License field? If yes, please add a comment to the spec file,
describing what license applies to what files.

> # the code is not big endian friendly
> ExcludeArch: s390x

According to the packaging guidelines

> Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in
> bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
> compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be
> placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New
> packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so
> they should put this description in the comment until the package is
> approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long
> explanation with the bug number.

Comment 6 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-03-14 21:04:30 UTC
Created attachment 1950795 [details]

Comment 7 Nikola Forró 2023-03-15 10:45:02 UTC
Thanks Jakub for the review.

I've updated the License field:
- AWS-LC is not built, so I'm not taking the sources into consideration
- the detected CMU license is actually BSD-3-Clause
- crt/aws-c-common/source/posix/time.c is licensed under Apache-2.0, but there is BSD-3-Clause license inside #if defined(__ANDROID__) block, so I'm excluding that one

About ExcludeArch, do you mean the comment is too brief and should be more detailed? I can't file a bug until after the package is approved.

Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-awscrt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05647244-python-awscrt/python-awscrt.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/nforro/python-awscrt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05647244-python-awscrt/python-awscrt-0.16.12-1.fc39.src.rpm

Comment 8 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-03-15 19:36:11 UTC
Thank you for the updates,

> About ExcludeArch, do you mean the comment is too brief and should be more detailed? I can't file a bug until after the package is approved.

Ah, you are right, I misread the documentation.
The comment is fine. But please don't forget to create the ticket and update the spec comment once this package is accepted.

Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated",
     "Apache License 2.0", "OpenSSL License Apache License 2.0", "ISC
     License", "SSLeay", "ISC License [generated file]", "MIT License",
     "BSD 3-Clause License Apache License 2.0", "OpenSSL License Apache
     License 1.0", "OpenSSL License", "SSLeay [generated file]", "BSD
     3-Clause License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "CMU License", "*No
     copyright* [generated file]", "OpenSSL License [generated file]",
     "Apache License 2.0 [generated file]", "*No copyright* Public domain",
     "ISC License Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* OpenSSL License".
     1511 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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
[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.
[!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: 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 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build
[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 =====

[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[?]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: python3-awscrt-0.16.12-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpsx3im471')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

python-awscrt-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 678167
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 1.3 s

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
checks: 31, packages: 2

python-awscrt-debugsource.x86_64: E: files-duplicated-waste 678167
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.9 s

Unversioned so-files
python3-awscrt: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/_awscrt.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so

Source checksums
https://files.pythonhosted.org/packages/source/a/awscrt/awscrt-0.16.12.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3986a456b7b7a00ce602e50ddfaa7218ceb2794ea4961d46286c43b5b358cc10
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3986a456b7b7a00ce602e50ddfaa7218ceb2794ea4961d46286c43b5b358cc10

python3-awscrt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

python-awscrt-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name python-awscrt --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Python, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, R, Haskell

Comment 9 Jakub Kadlčík 2023-03-20 12:14:50 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2179888 ***

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