Public bug reported: [Availability] The package ptyxis is already in Ubuntu universe. The package ptyxis build for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for all Ubuntu architectures except for i386 where it is not needed. Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ptyxis
[Rationale] - The package ptyxis is required in Ubuntu main for modernizing Ubuntu Desktop's terminal - The package ptyxis will generally be useful for a large part of our user base - Package ptyxis covers the same use case as gnome-terminal, but is better because [below], thereby we want to replace it. + Simpler preferences dialog but still full of features + Improved theming + Uses gtk4 (gnome-terminal will eventually switch to gtk4) + Part of the GNOME ecosystem. GNOME's default terminal is currently GNOME Console which isn't really suitable for us. I think GNOME will eventually switch to Ptyxis as the default terminal because both gnome-terminal and gnome-console aren't ideal for GNOME. Fedora Workstation switched from gnome-terminal to Ptyxis in 2024. - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or should go universe->main instead of this. - The binary packages ptyxis needs to be in main to achieve Ubuntu Desktop's goal of modernizing the pre-installed terminal app - All binary packages built by ptyxis need to be in main (there is only one binary package) - The package ptyxis is required in Ubuntu main no later than August 14 due to Ubuntu 25.10 Feature Freeze. We want early feedback in 25.10 before 26.04 LTS. [Security] - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past RULE: - Check for security relevant binaries, services and behavior. RULE: If any are present, this requires a more in-depth security review. RULE: Demonstrating that common isolation/risk-mitigation patterns are used RULE: will help to raise confidence. For example a service running as root RULE: open to the network will need to be considered very carefully. The same RULE: service dropping the root permissions after initial initialization, RULE: using various systemd isolation features and having a default active RULE: apparmor profile is much less concerning and can speed up acceptance. RULE: This helps Ubuntu, but you are encouraged to consider working with RULE: Debian and upstream to get those security features used at wide scale. RULE: - It might be impossible for the submitting team to check this perfectly RULE: (the security team will), but you should be aware that deprecated RULE: security algorithms like 3DES or TLS/SSL 1.1 are not acceptable. RULE: If you think a package might do that it would be great to provide a RULE: hint for the security team like "Package may use deprecated crypto" RULE: and provide the details you have about that. TODO: - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries TODO-A: - no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` TODO-B: - Binary TBD in sbin is no problem because TBD TODO-A: - Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs TODO-B: - Package does install services, timers or recurring jobs TODO-B: TBD (list services, timers, jobs) TODO: - Security has been kept in mind and common isolation/risk-mitigation TODO: patterns are in place utilizing the following features: TODO: TBD (add details and links/examples about things like dropping TODO: permissions, using temporary environments, restricted users/groups, TODO: seccomp, systemd isolation features, apparmor, ...) TODO-A: - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024). TODO-B: - Packages open privileged ports (ports < 1024), but they have TODO-B: a reason to do so (TBD) TODO-A: - Package does not expose any external endpoints TODO-B: - Package does expose an external endpoint, it is TODO-B: TBD endpoint + TBD purpose TODO: - Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software TODO: (filters, scanners, plugins, UI skins, ...) RULE: The package should not use deprecated security algorithms like 3DES or RULE: TLS/SSL 1.1. The security team is the one responsible to check this, RULE: but if you happen to spot something it helps to provide a hint. RULE: Provide whatever made you suspicious as details along that statement. RULE: Or remove the following lines entirely if you did not spot anything. TODO: - I've spotted what I consider deprecated algorithms, the security team TODO: should have a more careful look please, details are: [Quality assurance - function/usage] - The package works well right after install * There is a significant usability bug, LP: #2083705, that we expect to be able to fix with an upload of the bash package in May [Quality assurance - maintenance] - The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream and does not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs TODO: - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ptyxis/+bug TODO: - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=ptyxis TODO: - Upstream's bug tracker, e.g., GitHub Issues TODO: - The package has important open bugs, listing them: TBD TODO-A: - The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support TODO-B: - The package does deal with exotic hardware, such hardware is available TODO-B: to the team for debugging, test, verification and development via: RULE: This is about confidence to be able to maintain the package, therefore RULE: any option (the examples or anything else you add) is "valid", but it RULE: depends on the case if that is then considered sufficient. RULE: The following examples are in descending order in regard to how "ok" they RULE: likely will be. TODO-B1: - testflinger under the following queue(s): TBD TODO-B2: - (multiple) Canonical systems in the TBD computing center/lab TODO-B3: - an engineering sample in engineers home on TBD team, manager TBD TODO-B4: - (multiple) cloud providers as type: TBD TODO-B5: - hopefully somewhen getting it due to TBD [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 [Quality assurance - packaging] RULE: - The package uses a debian/watch file whenever possible. In cases where RULE: this is not possible (e.g. native packages), the package should either RULE: provide a debian/README.source file or a debian/watch file (with RULE: comments only) providing clear instructions on how to generate the RULE: source tar file. TODO-A: - debian/watch is present and works TODO-B: - debian/watch is not present, instead it has TBD TODO-C: - debian/watch is not present because it is a native package RULE: - The package should define the correct "Maintainer:" field in RULE: debian/control. This needs to be updated, using `update-maintainer` RULE: whenever any Ubuntu delta is applied to the package, as suggested by RULE: dpkg (LP: #1951988) TODO: - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field RULE: - It is often useful to run `lintian --pedantic` on the package to spot RULE: the most common packaging issues in advance RULE: - Non-obvious or non-properly commented lintian overrides should be RULE: explained TODO: - This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors TODO: - Please link to a recent build log of the package <TBD> TODO: - Please attach the full output you have got from TODO: `lintian --pedantic` as an extra post to this bug. TODO-A: - Lintian overrides are not present TODO-B: - Lintian overrides are present, but ok because TBD RULE: - The package should not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. RULE: That currently includes package dependencies on Python2 (without RULE: providing Python3 packages), and packages depending on GTK2. TODO: - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. TODO: - This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies RULE: - Debconf questions should not bother the default user too much TODO-A: - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf TODO-A: questions higher than medium TODO-B: - The package will not be installed by default RULE: - The source packaging (in debian/) should be reasonably easy to RULE: understand and maintain. TODO-A: - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules TBD TODO-B: - Packaging is complex, but that is ok because TBD [UI standards] TODO-A: - Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) TODO-B: - Application is end-user facing, Translation is present, via standard TODO-B: intltool/gettext or similar build and runtime internationalization TODO-B: system see TBD TODO-A: - End-user applications that ships a standard conformant desktop file, TODO-A: see TBD TODO-B: - End-user applications without desktop file, not needed because TBD [Dependencies] RULE: - In case of alternative the preferred alternative must be in main. RULE: - Build(-only) dependencies can be in universe RULE: - If there are further dependencies they need a separate MIR discussion RULE: (this can be a separate bug or another task on the main MIR bug) TODO-A: - No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet in main TODO-B: - There are further dependencies that are not yet in main, MIR for them TODO-B: is at TBD TODO-C: - There are further dependencies that are not yet in main, the MIR TODO-C: process for them is handled as part of this bug here. [Standards compliance] RULE: - Major violations should be documented and justified. RULE: - FHS: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml RULE: - Debian Policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ TODO-A: - This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy TODO-B: - This package violates FHS or Debian Policy, reasons for that are TBD [Maintenance/Owner] RULE: The package must have an acceptable level of maintenance corresponding RULE: to its complexity: RULE: - All packages must have a designated "owning" team, regardless of RULE: complexity. RULE: This requirement of an owning-team comes in two aspects: RULE: - A case needs to have a team essentially saying "yes we will own that" RULE: to enter the MIR process. Usually that is implied by team members RULE: filing MIR requests having the backup by their management for the RULE: long term commitment this implies. RULE: - A community driven MIR request might be filed to show the use case, RULE: but then, as a first step, needs to get a team agreeing to own RULE: it before the case can be processed further. RULE: If unsure which teams to consider have a look at the current mapping RULE: http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/m-r-package-team-mapping.html RULE: In that case (you are not a representative of the team who will RULE: gain the long term committment to this) please ask a representative RULE: of that team to comment on the bug acknowledging that they are ok to RULE: own it. RULE: - The package needs a bug subscriber before it can be promoted to main. RULE: Strictly speaking that subscription can therefore wait until the RULE: moment of the actual promotion by an archive admin. But it is RULE: strongly recommended to subscribe early, as the owning team will get RULE a preview of the to-be-expected incoming bugs later on. RULE: - Simple packages (e.g. language bindings, simple Perl modules, small RULE: command-line programs, etc.) might not need very much maintenance RULE: effort, and if they are maintained well in Debian we can just keep them RULE: synced. They still need a subscribing team to handle bugs, FTBFS and RULE: tests RULE: - More complex packages will usually need a developer or team of RULE: developers paying attention to their bugs, whether that be in Ubuntu RULE: or elsewhere (often Debian). Packages that deliver major new headline RULE: features in Ubuntu need to have commitment from Ubuntu developers RULE: willing to spend substantial time on them. TODO-A: - The owning team will be TBD and I have their acknowledgement for TODO-A: that commitment TODO-B: - I Suggest the owning team to be TBD TODO-A: - The future owning team is already subscribed to the package TODO-B: - The future owning team is not yet subscribed, but will subscribe to TODO-B: the package before promotion RULE: - Responsibilities implied by static builds promoted to main, which is RULE: not a recommended but a common case with golang and rust packages. RULE: - the security team will track CVEs for all vendored/embedded sources in main RULE: - the security team will provide updates to main for all `golang-*-dev` RULE: packages RULE: - the security team will provide updates to main for non-vendored RULE: dependencies as per normal procedures (including e.g., RULE: sponsoring/coordinating uploads from teams/upstream projects, etc) RULE: - the security team will perform no-change-rebuilds for all packages RULE: listing an CVE-fixed package as Built-Using and coordinate testing RULE: with the owning teams responsible for the rebuilt packages RULE: - for packages that build using any `golang-*-dev` packages: RULE: - the owning team must state their commitment to test RULE: no-change-rebuilds triggered by a dependent library/compiler and to RULE: fix any issues found for the lifetime of the release (including ESM RULE: when included) RULE: - the owning team must provide timely testing of no-change-rebuilds RULE: from the security team, fixing the rebuilt package as necessary RULE: - for packages that build with approved vendored code: RULE: - the owning team must state their commitment to provide updates to RULE: the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime of RULE: the release (including ESM when included) RULE: - the security team will alert the owning team of issues that may RULE: affect their vendored code RULE: - the owning team will provide timely, high quality updates for the RULE: security team to sponsor to fix issues in the affected vendored code RULE: - the owning team will use a minimal set of vendored code (e.g., Rust RULE: packages are unlikely to need `*_win` crates to build) RULE: - if subsequent uploads add new vendored components or dependencies RULE: these have to be reviewed and agreed by the security team. RULE: - Such updates in the project might be trivial, but imply that a RULE: dependency for e.g. a CVE fix will be moved to a new major version. RULE: Being vendored that does gladly at least not imply incompatibility RULE: issues with other packages or the SRU policy. But it might happen RULE: that this triggers either: RULE: a) The need to adapt the current version of the main package and/or RULE: other vendored dependencies to work with the new dependency RULE: b) The need to backport the fix in the dependency as the main RULE: package will functionally only work well with the older version RULE: c) The need to backport the fix in the dependency, as it would imply RULE: requiring a newer toolchain to be buildable that isn't available RULE: in the target release. RULE: - The rust ecosystem currently isn't yet considered stable enough for RULE: classic lib dependencies and transitions in main; therefore the RULE: expectation for those packages is to vendor (and own/test) all RULE: dependencies (except those provided by the rust runtime itself). RULE: This implies that all the rules for vendored builds always RULE: apply to them. In addition: RULE: - The rules and checks for rust based packages are preliminary and might RULE: change over time as the ecosystem matures and while RULE: processing the first few rust based packages. RULE: - It is expected rust builds will use dh-cargo so that a later switch RULE: to non vendored dependencies isn't too complex (e.g. it is likely RULE: that over time more common libs shall become stable and then archive RULE: packages will be used to build). RULE: - The tooling to get a Cargo.lock that will include internal vendored RULE: dependencies is described at: RULE: https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/blob/main/vendoring/Rust.md RULE: - An example of how Rust dependency vendoring can be automated is RULE: "s390-tools", isolating crates in a .orig-vendor.tar.xz tarball: RULE: * https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/s390-tools/tree/debian/rules RULE: Other examples include "authd" (for a native package, combined with RULE: Golang vendoring) and "gnome-snapshot" (using debian/missing-sources): RULE: * authd: RULE: https://github.com/ubuntu/authd/blob/main/debian/rules RULE: * gnome-snapshot: RULE: https://salsa.debian.org/ubuntu-dev-team/snapshot/-/blob/ubuntu/latest/debian/README.source RULE: - All vendored dependencies (no matter what language) shall have a RULE: way to be refreshed TODO-A: - This does not use static builds TODO-B: - The team TBD is aware of the implications by a static build and TODO-B: commits to test no-change-rebuilds and to fix any issues found for the TODO-B: lifetime of the release (including ESM) TODO-A: - This does not use vendored code TODO-B: - The team TBD is aware of the implications of vendored code and (as TODO-B: alerted by the security team) commits to provide updates and backports TODO-B: to the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime TODO-B: of the release (including ESM). TODO-A: - This does not use vendored code TODO-B: - This package uses vendored go code tracked in go.sum as shipped in the TODO-B: package, refreshing that code is outlined in debian/README.source TODO-C: - This package uses vendored rust code tracked in Cargo.lock as shipped, TODO-C: in the package (at /usr/share/doc/<pkgname>/Cargo.lock - might be TODO-C: compressed), refreshing that code is outlined in debian/README.source TODO-D: - This package uses vendored code, refreshing that code is outlined TODO-D: in debian/README.source TODO-A: - This package is not rust based TODO-B: - This package is rust based and vendors all non language-runtime TODO-B: dependencies RULE: - Some packages build and update often, in this case everyone can just RULE: check the recent build logs to ensure if it builds fine. RULE: But some other packages are rather stable and have not been rebuilt RULE: in a long time. There no one can be confident it would build on e.g. RULE: an urgent security fix. Hence we ask if there has been a recent build. RULE: That might be a recent build that has been done anyway as seen on RULE: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/<source>, a reference to a recent RULE: archive test rebuild (those are announced on the ubuntu-devel mailing RULE: list like https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2024-January/001342.html), RULE: or a build set up by the reporter in a PPA with all architectures RULE: enabled. TODO-A: - The package has been built within the last 3 months in the archive TODO-B: - The package has been built within the last 3 months as part TODO-B: of a test rebuild TODO-C: - The package has been built within the last 3 months in PPA TODO-D: - The package has been built within the last 3 months in sbuild as it TODO-D: can not be uploaded yet RULE: - To make it easier for everyone, please provide a link to that build so RULE: everyone can follow up easily e.g. checking the various architectures. RULE: Example https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qemu/1:8.2.2+ds-0ubuntu1 TODO: - Build link on launchpad: TBD [Background information] RULE: - The package descriptions should explain the general purpose and context RULE: of the package. Additional explanations/justifications should be done in RULE: the MIR report. RULE: - If the package was renamed recently, or has a different upstream name, RULE: this needs to be explained in the MIR report. TODO: The Package description explains the package well TODO: Upstream Name is TBD TODO: Link to upstream project TBD TODO: TBD (any further background that might be helpful ** Affects: ptyxis (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: Incomplete ** Changed in: ptyxis (Ubuntu) Status: New => Incomplete -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2108942 Title: [MIR] ptyxis To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ptyxis/+bug/2108942/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
