** Description changed:
+ Notes:
+ The MIR paperwork was started because openexr was a dependency of jpeg-xl but
we ended up building jpeg-xl without that support.
+
+ For the OpenEXR format (.exr) to be useful on Ubuntu, we need a gdk-
+ pixbuf plugin (and optionally a thumbnailer) so that it can be used in
+ GNOME-ish apps (like eog and shotwell) and as the desktop wallpaper.
+
+ That is available with https://github.com/afichet/openexr-thumbnailer but it
hasn't been packaged in many distros yet.
+ https://repology.org/project/openexr-thumbnailer/versions
+
+ I'd argue that it isn't worth promoting openexr to main without gdk-
+ pixbuf support.
+
[Availability]
The package openexr is already in Ubuntu universe.
The package openexr build for the architectures it is designed to work on.
It currently builds and works for all Ubuntu architectures
Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openexr
[Rationale]
- - The package openexr is required in Ubuntu main as a build and runtime
dependency of jpeg-xl (LP: #2070882)
- - The package openexr will generally be useful for a large part of our user
base
- - The binary package libopenexr-3-1-30 needs to be in main to achieve JPEG XL
support
-
- - It would be great and useful to community/processes to have the
- package openexr in Ubuntu main, but there is no definitive deadline.
+ TODO
[Security]
- Had multiple security issues in the past
- https://ubuntu.com/security/cve?package=openexr
- https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/openexr
- no `suid` or `sgid` binaries
- no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin`
- Packages do not install services, timers or recurring jobs
- Packages do not open privileged ports (ports < 1024).
- Packages do not expose any external endpoints
- Packages do not contain extensions to security-sensitive software (filters,
scanners, plugins, UI skins, ...)
[Quality assurance - function/usage]
- The package works well right after install
[Quality assurance - maintenance]
- The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream and does not have
too many, long-term & critical, open bugs
- Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openexr/+bug
- Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=openexr
- Upstream's bug tracker
https://github.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openexr/issues
- The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support
[Quality assurance - testing]
- RULE: - The package must include a non-trivial test suite
- RULE: - it should run at package build and fail the build if broken
- TODO-A: - The package runs a test suite on build time, if it fails
- TODO-A: it makes the build fail, link to build log TBD
- TODO-B: - The package does not run a test at build time because TBD
-
- RULE: - The package should, but is not required to, also contain
- RULE: non-trivial autopkgtest(s).
- TODO-A: - The package runs an autopkgtest, and is currently passing on
- TODO-A: this TBD list of architectures, link to test logs TBD
- TODO-B: - The package does not run an autopkgtest because TBD
-
- RULE: - existing but failing tests that shall be handled as "ok to fail"
- RULE: need to be explained along the test logs below
- TODO-A: - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now
- TODO-B: - The package does have failing autopkgtests tests right now, but
since
- TODO-B: they always failed they are handled as "ignored failure", this is
- TODO-B: ok because TBD
-
- RULE: - If no build tests nor autopkgtests are included, and/or if the package
- RULE: requires specific hardware to perform testing, the subscribed team
- RULE: must provide a written test plan in a comment to the MIR bug, and
- RULE: commit to running that test either at each upload of the package or
- RULE: at least once each release cycle. In the comment to the MIR bug,
- RULE: please link to the codebase of these tests (scripts or doc of manual
- RULE: steps) and attach a full log of these test runs. This is meant to
- RULE: assess their validity (e.g. not just superficial).
- RULE: If possible such things should stay in universe. Sometimes that is
- RULE: impossible due to the way how features/plugins/dependencies work
- RULE: but if you are going to ask for promotion of something untestable
- RULE: please outline why it couldn't provide its value (e.g. by splitting
- RULE: binaries) to users from universe.
- RULE: This is a balance that is hard to strike well, the request is that all
- RULE: options have been exploited before giving up. Look for more details
- RULE: and backgrounds https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/30
- RULE: Just like in the SRU process it is worth to understand what the
- RULE: consequences a regression (due to a test miss) would be. Therefore
- RULE: if being untestable we ask to outline what consequences this would
- RULE: have for the given package. And let us be honest, even if you can
- RULE: test you are never sure you will be able to catch all potential
- RULE: regressions. So this is mostly to force self-awareness of the owning
- RULE: team than to make a decision on.
- TODO: - The package can not be well tested at build or autopkgtest time
- TODO: because TBD. To make up for that:
- TODO-A: - We have access to such hardware in the team
- TODO-B: - We have allocated budget to get this hardware, but it is not here
- TODO-B: yet
- TODO-C: - We have checked with solutions-qa and will use their hardware
- TODO-C: through testflinger
- TODO-D: - We have checked with other team TBD and will use their hardware
- TODO-D: through TBD (eg. MAAS)
- TODO-E: - We have checked and found a simulator which covers this case
- TODO-E: sufficiently for testing, our plan to use it is TBD
- TODO-F: - We have engaged with the upstream community and due to that
- TODO-F: can tests new package builds via TBD
- TODO-G: - We have engaged with our user community and due to that
- TODO-G: can tests new package builds via TBD
- TODO-H: - We have engaged with the hardware manufacturer and made an
- TODO-H: agreement to test new builds via TBD
- TODO-A-H: - Based on that access outlined above, here are the details of the
- TODO-A-H: test plan/automation TBD (e.g. script or repo) and (if already
- TODO-A-H: possible) example output of a test run: TBD (logs).
- TODO-A-H: We will execute that test plan
- TODO-A-H1: on-uploads
- TODO-A-H2: regularly (TBD details like frequency: monthly, infra: jira-url)
- TODO-X: - We have exhausted all options, there really is no feasible way
- TODO-X: to test or recreate this. We are aware of the extra implications
- TODO-X: and duties this has for our team (= help SEG and security on
- TODO-X: servicing this package, but also more effort on any of your own
- TODO-X: bug triage and fixes).
- TODO-X: Due to TBD there also is no way to provide this to users from
- TODO-X: universe.
- TODO-X: Due to the nature, integration and use cases of the package the
- TODO-X: consequences of a regression that might slip through most likely
- TODO-X: would include
- TODO-X: - TBD
- TODO-X: - TBD
- TODO-X: - TBD
-
- RULE: - In some cases a solution that is about to be promoted consists of
- RULE: several very small libraries and one actual application uniting them
- RULE: to achieve something useful. This is rather common in the go/rust space.
- RULE: In that case often these micro-libs on their own can and should only
- RULE: provide low level unit-tests. But more complex autopkgtests make no
- RULE: sense on that level. Therefore in those cases one might want to test on
- RULE: the solution level.
- RULE: - Process wise MIR-requesting teams can ask (on the bug) for this
- RULE: special case to apply for a given case, which reduces the test
- RULE: constraints on the micro libraries but in return increases the
- RULE: requirements for the test of the actual app/solution.
- RULE: - Since this might promote micro-lib packages to main with less than
- RULE: the common level of QA any further MIRed program using them will have
- RULE: to provide the same amount of increased testing.
- TODO: - This package is minimal and will be tested in a more wide reaching
- TODO: solution context TBD, details about this testing are here TBD
+ TODO
[Quality assurance - packaging]
- debian/watch is present and works
- debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field
- Lintian overrides are present, but ok because this was affected by the
t64 transition
- This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages.
- This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies
- The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf
questions
- Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules
https://salsa.debian.org/debian-phototools-team/openexr/-/blob/master/debian/rules
[UI standards]
- Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation or .desktop
file)
[Dependencies]
- There are further dependencies that are not yet in main, MIR for them is at
imath LP: #
[Standards compliance]
- This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy
[Maintenance/Owner]
- - The owning team will be Ubuntu Desktop (~desktop-packages) and I have their
acknowledgement forthat commitment
+ - The owning team will be Ubuntu Desktop (~desktop-packages) and I have their
acknowledgement for that commitment
- This does not use static builds
- This does not use vendored code
- This package is not rust based
- The package has been built within the last 3 months in the archive
- Build link on launchpad:
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openexr/3.1.5-5.1build3
[Background information]
- The Package description explains the package well
- Upstream Name is openexr
- Link to upstream project
https://github.com/AcademySoftwareFoundation/openexr
https://openexr.com/
openexr was in main at the very beginning of Ubuntu. It was mentioned in
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionReportIlmbase . It was demoted to
universe in December 2019 when imagemagick was demoted to universe.
An additional binary package that has no reverse dependencies and can
remain in universe: openexr
** Changed in: openexr (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2071294
Title:
[MIR] openexr
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/openexr/+bug/2071294/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
