[Bug 1725840] New: Review Request: pcsc-lite-acsccid - ACS CCID PC/SC Driver for Linux/Mac OS X
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
Bug ID: 1725840 Summary: Review Request: pcsc-lite-acsccid - ACS CCID PC/SC Driver for Linux/Mac OS X Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jjelen@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/pcsc-lite-acsccid.spec SRPM URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/pcsc-lite-acsccid-1.1.6-1.fc31.src.rpm Description:
acsccid is a PC/SC driver for Linux/Mac OS X and it supports ACS CCID smart card readers. This library provides a PC/SC IFD handler implementation and communicates with the readers through the PC/SC Lite resource manager (pcscd).
Fedora Account System Username: jjelen
Based on the following user request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723030
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjelen/pcsc-lite-acsccid/
Feel free to reply with your package to review in exchange.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1723030
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723030 [Bug 1723030] Request the rpm "pcsc-lite-acsccid", EID card reader driver
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== Issues ====
1. The project does advertise its license as LGPLv2+. However, there are files with other licenses.
MIT: src/simclist.c src/simclist.h src/strlcpy.c
BSD: src/misc.h src/openct: the entire directory src/parser.h src/strlcpycat.h src/tokenparser.l
2. For ease of verifying that the correct compiler flags are in use, please either pass --disable-silent-rules to %configure, or add V=1 to the make invocation. Incidentally, the %make_build macro is equivalent to the make invocation in the spec file. It's a convenient shorthand that I recommend.
3. The package does contain bundled libraries. They must either be unbundled or the correct Provides added to the spec file, as described here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
The bundled libraries I see are: SimCList: http://mij.oltrelinux.com/devel/simclist/ OpenCT: https://github.com/OpenSC/openct/wiki
4. Add the -p flag to the install invocations in %install to preserve timestamps.
5. Fix the script-without-shebang error produced by rpmlint; see below. *Both* invocations of install in %install should pass -m 644.
6. The .so has undefined symbols:
$ ldd -r /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/ifd-acsccid.bundle/Contents/Linux/libasccid.so linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc3257b000) libusb-1.0.so.0 => /lib64/libusb-1.0.so.0 (0x00007f121ef66000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007f121ef45000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f121ed7e000) libudev.so.1 => /lib64/libudev.so.1 (0x00007f121ed51000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f121efae000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f121ed37000) undefined symbol: log_xxd (./libacsccid.so) undefined symbol: log_msg (./libacsccid.so)
Those symbols are defined in src/debug.c, which is apparently not linked into the final .so.
===== 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.
This is okay. The .so is a plugin, not a library in the 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v2 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "ISC License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)". 37 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jjames/1725840-pcsc-lite- acsccid/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [x]: 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 133120 bytes in 4 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 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
===== 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. [?]: 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: [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: pcsc-lite-acsccid-1.1.6-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo-1.1.6-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource-1.1.6-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm pcsc-lite-acsccid-1.1.6-1.fc31.src.rpm pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcscd pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccid -> kid, acid pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/pcsc-lite-acsccid/LICENSE.openct pcsc-lite-acsccid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcscd pcsc-lite-acsccid.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccid -> kid, acid 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo-1.1.6-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pcscd pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ccid -> kid, acid pcsc-lite-acsccid.x86_64: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/licenses/pcsc-lite-acsccid/LICENSE.openct 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- pcsc-lite-acsccid: /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/ifd-acsccid.bundle/Contents/Linux/libacsccid.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://downloads.sourceforge.net/acsccid/acsccid-1.1.6.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 71d505cb5309ac6b9f5b98246c8979615794488ebfdc1ccdd978116213b43539 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 71d505cb5309ac6b9f5b98246c8979615794488ebfdc1ccdd978116213b43539
Requires -------- pcsc-lite-acsccid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh libc.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libusb-1.0.so.0()(64bit) pcsc-lite rtld(GNU_HASH)
pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- pcsc-lite-acsccid: libacsccid.so()(64bit) pcsc-lite-acsccid pcsc-lite-acsccid(x86-64)
pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo pcsc-lite-acsccid-debuginfo(x86-64)
pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource: pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource pcsc-lite-acsccid-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1725840 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, Java, PHP, R, fonts, Ruby, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review. Comments inline.
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
[...]
===== Issues ====
- The project does advertise its license as LGPLv2+. However, there are
files with other licenses.
MIT: src/simclist.c src/simclist.h src/strlcpy.c
BSD: src/misc.h src/openct: the entire directory src/parser.h src/strlcpycat.h src/tokenparser.l
If I understand the licensing right, the BSD license is permissive and derivative/combined work can be licensed under different FOSS license. The same, I think apply for the MIT license.
If that is wrong understanding, I can indeed list also the other two, or what would be your proposal in this way?
- For ease of verifying that the correct compiler flags are in use, please either pass --disable-silent-rules to %configure, or add V=1 to the make invocation. Incidentally, the %make_build macro is equivalent to the make invocation in the spec file. It's a convenient shorthand that I
recommend.
I used the %make_build macro. Thanks.
The package does contain bundled libraries. They must either be unbundled or the correct Provides added to the spec file, as described here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
The bundled libraries I see are: SimCList: http://mij.oltrelinux.com/devel/simclist/ OpenCT: https://github.com/OpenSC/openct/wiki
SimCList is simple copylib. I do not see that packaged in the Fedora and I do not think it make sense to do that since it is single-small file. I will specify it as a bundled.
The OpenCT directory here is to my understanding not a whole bundled library, but just parts of it with significant modification to match the requirements of this driver. Out of curiosity, I tried to compare the proto-t1.c file from upstream and there is hardly anything kept in place:
$ diff /tmp/proto-t1.c acsccid-1.1.6/src/openct/proto-t1.c | wc -l 766
I am not sure what is the best way to handle this, but I would certainly not call that a bundled library, rather derivative work.
- Add the -p flag to the install invocations in %install to preserve timestamps.
Fixed. Thanks
- Fix the script-without-shebang error produced by rpmlint; see below. *Both* invocations of install in %install should pass -m 644.
Fixed.
The .so has undefined symbols:
$ ldd -r
/usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers/ifd-acsccid.bundle/Contents/Linux/libasccid.so linux-vdso.so.1 (0x00007ffc3257b000) libusb-1.0.so.0 => /lib64/libusb-1.0.so.0 (0x00007f121ef66000) libpthread.so.0 => /lib64/libpthread.so.0 (0x00007f121ef45000) libc.so.6 => /lib64/libc.so.6 (0x00007f121ed7e000) libudev.so.1 => /lib64/libudev.so.1 (0x00007f121ed51000) /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 (0x00007f121efae000) libgcc_s.so.1 => /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 (0x00007f121ed37000) undefined symbol: log_xxd (./libacsccid.so) undefined symbol: log_msg (./libacsccid.so)
Those symbols are defined in src/debug.c, which is apparently not linked into the final .so.
The src/Makefile.am links them to the final so only if we build the library without pcsc. These symbols are defined in /usr/include/PCSC/debuglog.h (from /usr/lib64/libpcsclite.so), which loads this library and therefore provides these symbols if I understand the logic here.
The updated spec file and srpm:
Spec URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/pcsc-lite-acsccid.spec SRPM URL: https://jjelen.fedorapeople.org/pcsc-lite-acsccid-1.1.6-1.fc31.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to Jakub Jelen from comment #3)
If I understand the licensing right, the BSD license is permissive and derivative/combined work can be licensed under different FOSS license. The same, I think apply for the MIT license.
If that is wrong understanding, I can indeed list also the other two, or what would be your proposal in this way?
No, that is correct. I know some maintainers prefer to list all the licenses explicitly in this situation, so I just wanted to make sure you knew. It is fine to keep the License tag as LGPLv2+.
- For ease of verifying that the correct compiler flags are in use, please either pass --disable-silent-rules to %configure, or add V=1 to the make invocation. Incidentally, the %make_build macro is equivalent to the make invocation in the spec file. It's a convenient shorthand that I
recommend.
I used the %make_build macro. Thanks.
Okay, but it would still be good to pass --disable-silent-rules to %configure, or add V=1 to the %make_build line. That shows the compiler flags in use.
SimCList is simple copylib. I do not see that packaged in the Fedora and I do not think it make sense to do that since it is single-small file. I will specify it as a bundled.
Okay, good.
I am not sure what is the best way to handle this, but I would certainly not call that a bundled library, rather derivative work.
Yes, you're right. That's OpenCT-derived code, rather than OpenCT itself. This case is covered in the Guidelines:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling
See the second bullet item: "Use the Versioning Guidelines to determine an appropriate version for the library, if possible. If the library has been forked from an upstream, use the upstream version that was most recently merged in or rebased onto, or the version the original library carried at the time of the fork." That's the case here. The code started off as OpenCT, but was forked. So the Provides should still be listed, with the version that OpenCT carried at the time of the fork.
The src/Makefile.am links them to the final so only if we build the library without pcsc. These symbols are defined in /usr/include/PCSC/debuglog.h (from /usr/lib64/libpcsclite.so), which loads this library and therefore provides these symbols if I understand the logic here.
Okay, I suspected something of the sort was going on, but failed to find where the symbols were defined. That's fine, then.
So please make the compiler flags visible, and add a Provides for OpenCT. Neither issue is serious, so I will go ahead and approve this review request.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelen jjelen@redhat.com --- Thank you for the clarifications.
Actually, about the bundling, the pcsc-lite-acsccid is based on the pcsc-lite-ccid (per the home page [1]) and that one has already quite the same parts of openct [2]. The import to pcsc-lite-ccid was done in Jun 2004 [3], which corresponds to the openct-0.6.0 release so I will mart it as such.
[1] http://acsccid.sourceforge.net/ [2] https://salsa.debian.org/rousseau/CCID/tree/master/src [3] https://salsa.debian.org/rousseau/CCID/commit/7bccd25ac4a8dbd825e4911f3b94bf... [4] https://github.com/OpenSC/openct/releases/tag/openct-0.6.0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
--- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pcsc-lite-acsccid
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725840
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2020-06-14 07:54:22
--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- This package was approved and imported in repositories, but this review ticket was never closed. I'm closing it now.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com