Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1346806 - Review Request: nss-pem - PEM file reader for Network Security Services (NSS)
Summary: Review Request: nss-pem - PEM file reader for Network Security Services (NSS)
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Pavel Raiskup
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1347336
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-06-15 11:30 UTC by Kamil Dudka
Modified: 2016-08-18 00:51 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: nss-pem-1.0.2-1.fc25
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-08-18 00:51:06 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
praiskup: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Kamil Dudka 2016-06-15 11:30:36 UTC
Spec URL: https://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/nss-pem/nss-pem.spec
SRPM URL: https://kdudka.fedorapeople.org/nss-pem/nss-pem-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: PEM file reader for Network Security Services (NSS), implemented as a PKCS#11 module.
Fedora Account System Username: kdudka

Comment 1 Kamil Dudka 2016-06-15 11:38:03 UTC
Note that nss-pem conflicts with the nss package because it used to be bundled with nss.  However, nss maintainers are aware of that and will unbundle nss-pem from the nss package once the separate nss-pem package is included in Fedora.

Comment 2 Pavel Raiskup 2016-06-16 04:43:45 UTC
Seems like there are some github issues, the link
https://github.com/kdudka/nss-pem/archive/nss-pem-1.0.1.tar.gz
actually downloads tarball 'nss-pem-nss-pem*' instead of 'nss-pem',
the tarball structure is also broken.  Taking into account it is temp
issue, ACK.  Fedora-review output:

-------------------------

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
  praiskup: this is expected.  Temporary collision with nss package, the plugin
  is going to be moved out from nss package.

- Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
  Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir.
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
  praiskup: nss installs the plugin also into _libdir, but should be fixed
  later together with 'nss' package.  For now it is 1:1 replacement.

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/praiskup/rh/packages
  /nss-pam/1346806-nss-pem/diff.txt
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
  praiskup: this is temporary issue, see above the comments


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "MPL (v1.1)", "*No copyright* MPL (v1.1) GPL
     (unversioned/unknown version)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown
     version)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/praiskup/rh/packages/nss-
     pam/1346806-nss-pem/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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
[-]: 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.
     praiskup: but this is temporary and expected
[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.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
     praiskup: sanity only check is fine 
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== 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 nss-pem-
     debuginfo
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
     praiskup: expected collision with 'nss' package
[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.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.2.17 starting (python version = 3.5.1)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: tmpfs initialized
INFO: selinux enabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: mounting tmpfs at /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root.
INFO: reusing tmpfs at /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root.
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
Mock Version: 1.2.17
INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.17
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/praiskup/rh/packages/nss-pam/1346806-nss-pem/results/nss-pem-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/praiskup/rh/packages/nss-pam/1346806-nss-pem/results/nss-pem-1.0.1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/praiskup/rh/packages/nss-pam/1346806-nss-pem/results/nss-pem-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/praiskup/rh/packages/nss-pam/1346806-nss-pem/results/nss-pem-1.0.1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nss-pem-1.0.1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          nss-pem-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm
          nss-pem-1.0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
nss-pem.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libnsspem.so libnsspem.so
nss-pem.x86_64: W: no-documentation
nss-pem.src: W: file-size-mismatch nss-pem-1.0.1.tar.gz = 40110, https://github.com/kdudka/nss-pem/archive/nss-pem-1.0.1.tar.gz = 40102
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.




Requires
--------
nss-pem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libdl.so.2()(64bit)
    libnspr4.so()(64bit)
    libnss3.so()(64bit)
    libnssutil3.so()(64bit)
    libnssutil3.so(NSSUTIL_3.12)(64bit)
    libplc4.so()(64bit)
    libplds4.so()(64bit)
    libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
    libsmime3.so()(64bit)
    libssl3.so()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

nss-pem-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
nss-pem:
    libnsspem.so()(64bit)
    libnsspem.so(NSS_3.1)(64bit)
    nss-pem
    nss-pem(x86-64)

nss-pem-debuginfo:
    nss-pem-debuginfo
    nss-pem-debuginfo(x86-64)



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
nss-pem: /usr/lib64/libnsspem.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/kdudka/nss-pem/archive/nss-pem-1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ce0378bd399834e5fa0aacdf99b611921e89ffed74d159b47065d5349bb02414
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c5ee15a0cd3e742553336495f37b50c7d92661599a1563e18dc149475f2e0ceb
diff -r also reports differences

praiskup: github issue ^^^, diff -ruN is clean


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1346806
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 3 Kamil Dudka 2016-06-16 11:42:55 UTC
(In reply to Pavel Raiskup from comment #2)
> Seems like there are some github issues, the link
> https://github.com/kdudka/nss-pem/archive/nss-pem-1.0.1.tar.gz
> actually downloads tarball 'nss-pem-nss-pem*' instead of 'nss-pem',
> the tarball structure is also broken.

Thanks for the remark!  It was not a temporary issue.  It was caused by GitHub using its own approach to generate tarballs out of tagged snapshots.  I was mistakenly expecting it would work the same way as on fedorahosted.org.

This is now fixed via the following commits:

https://github.com/kdudka/nss-pem/commit/62d0f0b9
https://github.com/kdudka/nss-pem/commit/23903820

> Taking into account it is temp issue, ACK.

Thanks for the review!

Comment 4 Pavel Raiskup 2016-06-16 11:52:15 UTC
New release tarball is fine, thanks.

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-06-16 13:10:21 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nss-pem

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2016-07-21 08:23:27 UTC
nss-pem-1.0.2-2.fc24 nss-3.25.0-1.2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ac25856f0

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2016-07-21 18:52:30 UTC
nss-3.25.0-1.2.fc24, nss-pem-1.0.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5ac25856f0

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2016-07-24 20:20:10 UTC
nss-3.25.0-1.2.fc24, nss-pem-1.0.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-08-01 20:21:19 UTC
nss-3.25.0-1.2.fc23 nss-pem-1.0.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-87e128568d

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2016-08-02 21:52:42 UTC
nss-3.25.0-1.2.fc23, nss-pem-1.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-87e128568d

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2016-08-18 00:50:57 UTC
nss-3.25.0-1.2.fc23, nss-pem-1.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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