Rename USE_NSS to USE_NSS_CERTS.

Rename USE_NSS to USE_NSS_CERTS.

USE_NSS is confusing because it's not actually the analog of USE_OPENSSL; it's
the analog to USE_OPENSSL_CERTS. This is in preparation for the chimera build
which will set USE_OPENSSL and USE_NSS(_CERTS).

This CL was partially done automatically by the following command:

  git grep -l USE_NSS | xargs sed -i -e 's/defined(USE_NSS)/defined(USE_NSS_CERTS)/'

The remaining were caught by the following command and fixed manually:

  git grep 'USE_NSS\([^_]\|$\)'

Finally, the following command verified nothing in a separate repository was
sensitive to this change:

  find . -name '*.cc' -o -name '*.h' | xargs grep 'USE_NSS\([^_]\|$\)'

For now, the old name is still defined, but not used within Chromium.

A follow-up CL will remove deprecated use_nss and USE_NSS #defines
together which will then cause downstream churn. Though from a grep
of known downstreams, the churn seems to be fairly minimal. The
removal is split from this CL so that, if we need to revert, the
CL to revert is small.

TBR=pneubeck@chromium.org
BUG=462040
Committed: https://crrev.com/71f35ff13af84be1b97483307e050d83c2179134
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#325710}

[davidben, 2015-04-14 20:53:55]

davidben@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ rsleevi@chromium.org

[davidben, 2015-04-14 20:53:56]

And here's the fun and exciting one. I opted not to keep USE_NSS around. It
looks like we'll be able to get away with that, but we'll see how much is
tempting fate.

As a large part of this CL was done with sed, I've included the commands I ran.

No try jobs yet since it depends on the gyp/grit CL.

[Ryan Sleevi, 2015-04-16 01:49:11]

lgtm

[davidben, 2015-04-16 16:16:41]

davidben@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jam@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org

[davidben, 2015-04-16 16:16:42]

+thakis for build/OWNERS
+jam for top-level OWNERS since this is just a mass rename. You can skip
content, crypto, and net. git cl presubmit says the files that don't have
coverage are:

    chrome/browser/profiles/profile_io_data.cc
    chrome/browser/ui/views/ssl_client_certificate_selector.cc
    chrome/browser/ui/views/ssl_client_certificate_selector_browsertest.cc
    chrome/browser/ui/webui/chrome_web_ui_controller_factory.cc
    chrome/browser/ui/webui/options/browser_options_handler.h
    chrome/browser/ui/webui/options/certificate_manager_browsertest.js
    chrome/browser/ui/webui/options/options_ui.cc
    chrome/plugin/chrome_content_plugin_client.cc
    chrome/renderer/chrome_render_process_observer.cc
    chrome/utility/importer/nss_decryptor.cc
    chrome/utility/importer/nss_decryptor.h
    chromecast/browser/url_request_context_factory.cc
    chromecast/renderer/cast_content_renderer_client.cc
    chromeos/network/onc/onc_certificate_importer_impl_unittest.cc
    components/nacl/loader/nacl_helper_linux.cc
    components/nacl/loader/nacl_validation_query.cc
    components/ownership/mock_owner_key_util.cc
    components/ownership/mock_owner_key_util.h
    components/ownership/owner_key_util.h
    components/ownership/owner_key_util_impl.cc
    components/ownership/owner_key_util_impl.h
    remoting/host/token_validator_base.cc

I've confirmed nothing in the infra repo cares about this. There will be some
turbulence in downstream repos, but fairly small as far as I can tell.

gyp seems to blow up on unknown variable names, so those will be caught easily.
It's true that our #ifdef pattern will not, but I would expect very visible
compile or link failures.

The OpenSSL/NSS chimera Intent to Implement mentioned this change, but I will
send a separate PSA to chromium-dev when the changes have landed, so downstream
repositories will notice. (Though from experience with past BoringSSL switches,
not all of our downstreams pay as much attention to chromium-dev as they
should... <_<)

So downstreams only have one mass rename rather than two, I plan on landing this
right after https://codereview.chromium.org/1085923002/, which
means they'll need to be reverted together. (I'll put together a combined CL to
run try jobs right after this.)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/build_config.h
File build/build_config.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/build_config.h#ne...
build/build_config.h:64: #if defined(USE_OPENSSL) && defined(USE_NSS_CERTS)
This line is now mildly strange, which is part of the point. The chimera CL will
tweak this since the internal crypto library (USE_OPENSSL) and the platform
certificate library (OS_FOO and USE_NSS_CERTS) ideally should be orthogonal.
I've left it alone in this CL.

[Nico, 2015-04-16 16:33:11]

build lgtm

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/build_config.h
File build/build_config.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/build_config.h#ne...
build/build_config.h:64: #if defined(USE_OPENSSL) && defined(USE_NSS_CERTS)
On 2015/04/16 16:16:42, David Benjamin wrote:
> This line is now mildly strange, which is part of the point. The chimera CL
will
> tweak this since the internal crypto library (USE_OPENSSL) and the platform
> certificate library (OS_FOO and USE_NSS_CERTS) ideally should be orthogonal.
> I've left it alone in this CL.

Maybe have a short comment and possibly a link to the chimera bug in-code

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/common.gypi
File build/common.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/common.gypi#newco...
build/common.gypi:3001: 'defines': ['USE_NSS_CERTS=1'],
If you felt cautious, you could define both in this CL and then reland the
removal of the USE_NSS define in a separate CL. If you need to revert, you would
have less churn then.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/config/BUILD.gn
File build/config/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/config/BUILD.gn#n...
build/config/BUILD.gn:129: defines += [ "USE_NSS_CERTS=1" ]
same here

[davidben, 2015-04-16 18:32:01]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/build_config.h
File build/build_config.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/build_config.h#ne...
build/build_config.h:64: #if defined(USE_OPENSSL) && defined(USE_NSS_CERTS)
On 2015/04/16 16:33:11, Nico wrote:
> On 2015/04/16 16:16:42, David Benjamin wrote:
> > This line is now mildly strange, which is part of the point. The chimera CL
> will
> > tweak this since the internal crypto library (USE_OPENSSL) and the platform
> > certificate library (OS_FOO and USE_NSS_CERTS) ideally should be orthogonal.
> > I've left it alone in this CL.
> 
> Maybe have a short comment and possibly a link to the chimera bug in-code

Done.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/common.gypi
File build/common.gypi (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/common.gypi#newco...
build/common.gypi:3001: 'defines': ['USE_NSS_CERTS=1'],
On 2015/04/16 16:33:11, Nico wrote:
> If you felt cautious, you could define both in this CL and then reland the
> removal of the USE_NSS define in a separate CL. If you need to revert, you
would
> have less churn then.

Yeah, that's a good idea. I think even just the rename here will cause a little
bit of churn. There's one place I found where CrOS has to manually set all the
OS_FOO and USE_FOO flags. But I guess they'll notice a build failure and sort it
out.

Revised plan: I'll still send the PSA when this lands so downstreams can rename
as soon as they take this pair of CLs without making automated rolls sad. Then
I'll land the removal of the deprecated ones a day or two later.

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/config/BUILD.gn
File build/config/BUILD.gn (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/diff/20001/build/config/BUILD.gn#n...
build/config/BUILD.gn:129: defines += [ "USE_NSS_CERTS=1" ]
On 2015/04/16 16:33:11, Nico wrote:
> same here

Done.

[jam, 2015-04-16 20:42:00]

lgtm

per the owners policy
https://www.chromium.org/developers/owners-files#TOC-When-to-use-To-Be-Review...,
you can just tbr owners for stuff like this

[davidben, 2015-04-17 16:06:50]

The CQ bit was checked by davidben@chromium.org

[davidben, 2015-04-17 16:06:51]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from thakis@chromium.org,
rsleevi@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/#ps60001
(title: "thakis comments")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 16:07:18]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1082123003/60001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 16:18:57]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 16:18:58]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_chromium_chromeos_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_clobber_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_compile_dbg_32_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  linux_chromium_rel_ng on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/linux_chromium_...)
  ios_dbg_simulator_ninja on tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_dbg_simulator...)
  ios_rel_device_ninja on tryserver.chromium.mac (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.mac/builders/ios_rel_device_ni...)

[davidben, 2015-04-17 16:49:08]

The CQ bit was checked by davidben@chromium.org

[davidben, 2015-04-17 16:49:09]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from thakis@chromium.org,
jam@chromium.org, rsleevi@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1082123003/#ps80001
(title: "rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 16:50:19]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1082123003/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 17:07:45]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 17:07:47]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  chromium_presubmit on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/chromium_presub...)

[davidben, 2015-04-17 17:14:15]

davidben@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ pneubeck@chromium.org

[davidben, 2015-04-17 17:14:42]

TBR pneubeck for chromeos/network/onc/onc_certificate_importer_impl_unittest.cc

[davidben, 2015-04-17 17:14:51]

The CQ bit was checked by davidben@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 17:16:49]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1082123003/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 20:54:55]

Committed patchset #5 (id:80001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-04-17 20:57:20]

Patchset 5 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/71f35ff13af84be1b97483307e050d83c2179134
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#325710}

[pneubeck (no reviews), 2015-04-20 09:39:58]

lgtm