Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dashea/specs/main/python-nss/python-nss.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/python-nss/srpm-builds/04891563/python-nss-1.0.120210803hg9de14a6f77e2-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for Network Security Services (NSS). This package was previously retired due to lack of time/interest on the part of the original maintainer, but there are still packages in Fedora (sigul) that depend on it. Sigul seems kind of vital so I'd like to see that working again. Fedora Account System Username: dshea
Updating the thing since I changed my mind on the name of the COPR repo, and also it's probably best to pin the specfile to a specific git revision. Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dashea/specs/797d098f77d059fd6d4ec9b7d07d439093ea8505/python-nss/python-nss.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/buildsys/fedora-36-x86_64/04944397-python-nss/python-nss-1.0.1%5E20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Python bindings for Network Security Services (NSS). Fedora Account System Username: dshea
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/NSPRerrs.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SECerrs.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SSLerrs.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_common.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_shared_doc.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.h python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_traceback.h See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_devel_packages [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package Need to ask in python-devel mailing list, I've never seen such a situation. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-nss See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names False positive, this is an un-retirement. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. You should update the specfile to use SPDX identifier. AFAIK, the license breakdown is no more required. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. This is a SHOULD, can you add comments about applied patches? [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. python3-nss.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/.buildinfo Weird file in final package. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/reviews/2133080-python- nss/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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 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 747520 bytes in 34 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 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 work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-nss [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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: python3-nss-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-nss-debugsource-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-1.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-nss-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-1.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/tmp60mn0zrf')] checks: 31, packages: 3 python3-nss.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/.buildinfo python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/NSPRerrs.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SECerrs.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SSLerrs.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_common.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.c python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.c python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.c python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_shared_doc.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.c python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_traceback.h == 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.4 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: 2 python3-nss.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/.buildinfo python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/NSPRerrs.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SECerrs.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SSLerrs.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_common.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.c python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.c python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.c python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_shared_doc.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.c python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.h python3-nss.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_traceback.h 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-nss: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/error.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-nss: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/io.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-nss: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/nss.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-nss: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/ssl.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/python-nss/archive/9de14a6f77e2586269e91f770ca7f7b95282945d.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f89f2f70e81dd0fb60c28af8117250cd7c57a797f77f02378d43a2ea96da3363 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f89f2f70e81dd0fb60c28af8117250cd7c57a797f77f02378d43a2ea96da3363 Requires -------- python3-nss (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libnspr4.so()(64bit) libnss3.so()(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.10)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.11)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.11.1)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.11.7)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12.5)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12.9)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.13)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.14)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2.1)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.3)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.5)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.6)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.7)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.8)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.9)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.9.2)(64bit) libnssutil3.so()(64bit) libnssutil3.so(NSSUTIL_3.12)(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libsmime3.so(NSS_3.10)(64bit) libsmime3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.11.4)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.12.6)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.14)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.7.4)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-nss-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-nss: python-nss python3-nss python3-nss(x86-64) python3.11-nss python3.11dist(python-nss) python3dist(python-nss) python-nss-debugsource: python-nss-debugsource python-nss-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2133080 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Python, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Haskell, R, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
I was hoping to avoid bringing python-nss back. ;( Upstream is completely gone, so keep in mind you will be upstream too if you bring it back. See: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YIM5CDJISNW3ZKTY4QYMHGPPQ3EDIHWW/ Patrick was re-writing sigul I think to avoid using nss, but I have been unable to find out the status of that recently. ;(
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #2) > - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/NSPRerrs.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SECerrs.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SSLerrs.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_common.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_shared_doc.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.h > python3-nss : /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_traceback.h > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/#_devel_packages > [!]: Development files must be in a -devel package > > Need to ask in python-devel mailing list, I've never seen such a situation. The header files are only for building the extension modules. They aren't useful for another program to build against, so excluding them is the right thing to do. The test is mis-interpreting them as something more like a C library. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > must be documented in the spec. > > You should update the specfile to use SPDX identifier. AFAIK, the license > breakdown > is no more required. I didn't think the SPDX identifiers were ready yet? Based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 and the linked tracking bug. I can pare the list down to just MPL though since it's GPL compatible. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > > This is a SHOULD, can you add comments about applied patches? The patches themselves have git commit messages. And if I'm going to be de facto upstream I could just point the Source URL to my github repo instead and skip the patches. > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > python3-nss.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/.buildinfo > > Weird file in final package. Leftover from sphinx, I'll remove it.
(In reply to David Shea from comment #4) > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown > > must be documented in the spec. > > > > You should update the specfile to use SPDX identifier. AFAIK, the license > > breakdown > > is no more required. > > I didn't think the SPDX identifiers were ready yet? Based on > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 and the linked > tracking bug. I can pare the list down to just MPL though since it's GPL > compatible. I see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/ uses SPDX identifiers now. Whatever, I'll change it.
Spec URL: https://github.com/dashea/specs/blob/df5bee445a4693bca51d996cbd59ae0572905642/python-nss/python-nss.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/buildsys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05198376-python-nss/python-nss-1.0.1%5E20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-2.fc38.src.rpm
I see three different license files: %license LICENSE.gpl LICENSE.lgpl LICENSE.mpl Yet the actual license tag is only MPL-2.0. Why is that? > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sphinx-build You might generate this dependency based on either the [docs] extras: %pyproject_buildrequires -t -x docs Or the tox target: %pyproject_buildrequires -e %{default_toxenv},docs But note that according to tox.ini, sphinx < 5 is required. That could be possibly lifted by changing 0001-Remove-the-docs-build-from-setup.py.patch
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #7) > I see three different license files: > > %license LICENSE.gpl LICENSE.lgpl LICENSE.mpl > > Yet the actual license tag is only MPL-2.0. Why is that? Due to my half-assed reading of the earlier license comment and current Fedora license string expectations. I've put the tri-license back as an SPDX expression. > > BuildRequires: /usr/bin/sphinx-build > > You might generate this dependency based on either the [docs] extras: > > %pyproject_buildrequires -t -x docs > > Or the tox target: > > %pyproject_buildrequires -e %{default_toxenv},docs Done. Used the first one, based on the extras, which does not work in Fedora 36. I can switch to the tox-based one if that becomes a problem. > But note that according to tox.ini, sphinx < 5 is required. That could be > possibly lifted by changing 0001-Remove-the-docs-build-from-setup.py.patch Done. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/buildsys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05198418-python-nss/python-nss.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/buildsys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05198418-python-nss/python-nss-1.0.1%5E20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-3.fc38.src.rpm
Considering bz2153418, Fedora 36 might need to work. The ability to read dependencies from an extra from %pyproject_buildrequires does work on Fedora 36, so if this "does not work" on Fedora 36 I suspect it is because the metadata is in pyproject.toml which setuptools on Fedora 36 might not understand yet fully -- and if that is the case, be prepared for other problems there as well.
Reading the spec... is this line necessary? mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_docdir}%{name}/html The rest seems very well understandable, thanks.
Don't know what exactly in the environment is different to make one pull in sphinx and the other not, but the tox env based buildrequires works, so whatever, I switched to that. As far as that mkdir, not sure why I had that. It does not appear to be necessary, removed. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/buildsys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05198480-python-nss/python-nss.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/buildsys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05198480-python-nss/python-nss-1.0.1%5E20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-4.fc38.src.rpm
Looking at the packaged files. ... /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/NSPRerrs.h /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SECerrs.h /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SSLerrs.h ... /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_common.h /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.c /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.h /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.c /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.h /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.c /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.h /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_shared_doc.h /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.c /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.h /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_traceback.h ... > The header files are only for building the extension modules. They aren't useful for another program to build against, so excluding them is the right thing to do. If this was established, should the header files be indeed excluded? ... /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/_static/jquery-3.6.0.js /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/_static/jquery.js ... /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/_static/underscore-1.13.1.js /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/_static/underscore.js ... The documentation bundles jquery and other CSS and JS things. Do you really need to build it? If so, should it: 1) be split to an optional subpackage to avoid installing it alongside a dependency of other packages 2) declare all bundled() provides 3) have a license tag that has the license of the bundled bits in it ? (I'd simply not build the docs at all instead.)
Also, the %license files are duplicated (%{pyproject_files} already has them): $ rpm -qlp --licensefiles Stažené/python3-nss-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-4.fc38.x86_64.rpm /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.gpl /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.lgpl /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.mpl /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.gpl /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.lgpl /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.mpl
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #12) > Looking at the packaged files. > > ... > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/NSPRerrs.h > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SECerrs.h > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/SSLerrs.h > ... > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_common.h > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.c > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_error.h > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.c > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nspr_io.h > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.c > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_nss.h > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_shared_doc.h > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.c > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_ssl.h > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/py_traceback.h > ... > > > The header files are only for building the extension modules. They aren't useful for another program to build against, so excluding them is the right thing to do. > > If this was established, should the header files be indeed excluded? Aw nerts, misread this one too. I was looking at the F36 package, which doesn't do this. Apparently setuptools changed something since then as far as what files get included. I've added a patch that moves the one python file (__init__.py) into a separate directory so that everything else doesn't get pulled in as part of the python module. > > ... > /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/_static/jquery-3.6.0.js > /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/_static/jquery.js > ... > /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/_static/underscore-1.13.1.js > /usr/share/doc/python3-nss/html/_static/underscore.js > ... > > The documentation bundles jquery and other CSS and JS things. Do you really > need to build it? If so, should it: > > 1) be split to an optional subpackage to avoid installing it alongside a > dependency of other packages > 2) declare all bundled() provides > 3) have a license tag that has the license of the bundled bits in it > > ? > > (I'd simply not build the docs at all instead.) Sure, I'll just remove it. (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #13) > Also, the %license files are duplicated (%{pyproject_files} already has > them): > > $ rpm -qlp --licensefiles > Stažené/python3-nss-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-4.fc38.x86_64.rpm > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.gpl > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.lgpl > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.mpl > /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.gpl > /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.lgpl > /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.mpl So this one seems a little weird. They're getting added to the dist-info automatically, and marked as license files, even if I remove the reference to the files from setup.cfg. But this only happens in rawhide, so f36/f37 will need to do something differently. Any advice?
> But this only happens in rawhide, so f36/f37 will need to do something differently. Any advice? Explicitly marking the files as license_files in the setuptools configuration should include them in all Fedora releases. That way, you can drop the explicit %license list from %files. BTW I belive you are fighting the setuptools differences between f36 and f38 namely because you store the project metadata in pyproject.toml which is quite a new feature -- try not to do that and the behavior *might* get more consistent.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #13) > Also, the %license files are duplicated (%{pyproject_files} already has > them): > > $ rpm -qlp --licensefiles > Stažené/python3-nss-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-4.fc38.x86_64.rpm > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.gpl > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.lgpl > /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/python_nss-1.0.1.dist-info/LICENSE.mpl > /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.gpl > /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.lgpl > /usr/share/licenses/python3-nss/LICENSE.mpl I would expect license files of an installed package to reside under /usr/share/licenses/ so I would not consider those as "duplicated". Otherwise I would expect the license files under the dist-info to be removed, as we usually move license files for other (non-python) packages from /usr/share/foo/ proprietary directory to /usr/share/licenses/.
To clarify what was going on with the licenses: the specification for license-files is kind of in flux in the python-packaging specs, and 'wheel' and 'setuptools' (in setup.cfg) have different expected formats. On F36 and F37, wheel was mis-interpreting a license-file string in setup.cfg, and installing nothing. On rawhide, a newer version of wheel (>= 0.38.1) uses the parsed data from setuptools instead, and thus is able to find and install the license files into dist-info. Removing the setting entirely causes both libraries to fall back to their default patterns, and that way the license files are installed to dist-info on F36 and F37 as well. Whether installing to dist-info is correct or not is a question for the python SIG because that's what the macros to be used by every python package are doing right now. Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/buildsys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05200740-python-nss/python-nss.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/dshea/buildsys/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05200740-python-nss/python-nss-1.0.1%5E20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-6.fc38.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5200753 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/fedora-review-2133080-python-nss/srpm-builds/05200753/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #18) > Copr build: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5200753 > (failed) > > Build log: > https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/frostyx/fedora-review- > 2133080-python-nss/srpm-builds/05200753/builder-live.log.gz > > Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. > > > --- > This comment was created by the fedora-review-service > https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service Come on, I literally linked to a COPR repo with successful builds. The error in the failed build is in re-creating the SRPM and it just has: > [2023-01-04 20:45:40,303][ ERROR][PID:2642232] Unexpected exception (in /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/copr_backend/helpers.py:511) I don't know what exact version copr_backend this is from, but based on the current source it's probably a failure trying to publish something to redis.
(In reply to Mattia Verga from comment #16) > I would expect license files of an installed package to reside under > /usr/share/licenses/ so I would not consider those as "duplicated". > Otherwise I would expect the license files under the dist-info to be > removed... There is no real reason for this expectation. See e.g. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/OHNVT5S4ZPOB56KAYNCWZOC6W2WAV54C/ (In reply to David Shea from comment #17) > To clarify what was going on with the licenses: the specification for > license-files is kind of in flux in the python-packaging specs, and 'wheel' > and 'setuptools' (in setup.cfg) have different expected formats. On F36 and > F37, wheel was mis-interpreting a license-file string in setup.cfg, and > installing nothing. Is this a bug we might be able to fix? Do you have some details to your investigation so I don't have to start from scratch? Feel free to open a new bugzilla for python-wheel not to clutter this package review. Thanks.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #20) > (In reply to David Shea from comment #17) > > To clarify what was going on with the licenses: the specification for > > license-files is kind of in flux in the python-packaging specs, and 'wheel' > > and 'setuptools' (in setup.cfg) have different expected formats. On F36 and > > F37, wheel was mis-interpreting a license-file string in setup.cfg, and > > installing nothing. > > Is this a bug we might be able to fix? Do you have some details to your > investigation so I don't have to start from scratch? Feel free to open a new > bugzilla for python-wheel not to clutter this package review. Thanks. This package is fine now: I removed the license-files setting from setup.cfg, and the default pattern works. For packages where the default pattern doesn't work, the answer would be to specify things in pyproject.toml in the way that wheel expects (an array of globs). I avoided that here since this package needs setuptools, and the setuptools doc has a big "Provisionional, likely to change" note on that that key. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As far as the details, with a setting of license_files = "LICENSE.gpl,LICENSE.lgpl,LICENSE.mpl" in setup.cfg, wheel was looking for a file named "LICENSE.gpl,LICENSE.lgpl,LICENSE.mpl", which did not exist. wheel made the issue moot with https://github.com/pypa/wheel/commit/9ec201660fa07ee0714edd17c979a7039ea852a4#diff-968e9434803a49381f6dd3ced4131c331ae036ba3d1ff0273d9491cbada083adR437-R451 .
> Come on, I literally linked to a COPR repo with successful builds. I am sorry, please ignore the error. I noticed it and it looked very weird, so it caught my interest. I think that the error was caused by the URL encoded caret symbol ^ in your filename. Which is a bug on Copr side. This PR fixes it https://github.com/fedora-copr/copr/pull/2454
Package APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [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. 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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rpmbuild/reviews/2133080-python- nss/licensecheck.txt [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 names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in python3-nss [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: python3-nss-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-6.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-nss-debugsource-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-6.fc38.x86_64.rpm python-nss-1.0.1^20210803hg9de14a6f77e2-6.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/tmpclm9ti3r')] checks: 31, packages: 3 === 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.5 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: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- python3-nss: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/error.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-nss: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/io.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-nss: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/nss.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so python3-nss: /usr/lib64/python3.11/site-packages/nss/ssl.cpython-311-x86_64-linux-gnu.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/python-nss/archive/9de14a6f77e2586269e91f770ca7f7b95282945d.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f89f2f70e81dd0fb60c28af8117250cd7c57a797f77f02378d43a2ea96da3363 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f89f2f70e81dd0fb60c28af8117250cd7c57a797f77f02378d43a2ea96da3363 Requires -------- python3-nss (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libnspr4.so()(64bit) libnss3.so()(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.10)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.11)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.11.1)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.11.7)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12.5)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.12.9)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.13)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.14)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2.1)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.3)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.5)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.6)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.7)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.8)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.9)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.9.2)(64bit) libnssutil3.so()(64bit) libnssutil3.so(NSSUTIL_3.12)(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libsmime3.so(NSS_3.10)(64bit) libsmime3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.11.4)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.12.6)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.14)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.7.4)(64bit) python(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) python-nss-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- python3-nss: python-nss python3-nss python3-nss(x86-64) python3.11-nss python3.11dist(python-nss) python3dist(python-nss) python-nss-debugsource: python-nss-debugsource python-nss-debugsource(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2133080 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Shell-api, Python Disabled plugins: R, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, fonts, SugarActivity, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Releng ticket: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11210
David, I see you have imported and build the package for rawhide, f37 and f36, but you didn't create the update for f37 and f36. Can you move this forward, so that we can try to fix sigul on stable branches too?
FEDORA-2023-315afd98ee has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-315afd98ee
FEDORA-2023-efae71c9b6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-efae71c9b6
FEDORA-2023-efae71c9b6 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-efae71c9b6 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-efae71c9b6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-315afd98ee has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-315afd98ee \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-315afd98ee See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-efae71c9b6 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-315afd98ee has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.