** Description changed: [Availability] TODO: The package gst-thumbnailers is already in Ubuntu universe. Not yet, https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2137704 is tracking that. The package gst-thumbnailers builds for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for architectures: amd64, amd64v3, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x https://launchpad.net/~charles05/+archive/ubuntu/gst-thumbnailers [Rationale] RULE: There must be a certain level of demand for the package The package gst-thumbnailers is required in Ubuntu main for GNOME desktop integration. gst-thumbnailers is the now officially recommended solution for thumbnailing, superceeding the Totem thumbnailers. See: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Releng/AppOrganization/-/issues/35 The package gst-thumbnailers will generally be useful for a large part of our user base. Package gst-thumbnailers covers the same use case as totem-video-thumbnailer, but is better because it's written in a memory-safe programming language, thereby we want to replace it. There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or should go universe->main instead of this. This is the first time package will be in main All binary packages built by gst-thumbnailers need to be in main to achieve consistency with GNOME. It would be great and useful to community/processes to have the package gst-thumbnailers in Ubuntu main, but there is no definitive deadline. [Security] No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past due to the project not seeing widespread adoption yet. 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. no `suid` or `sgid` binaries no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs Package does install services, timers or recurring 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, ...) + While GStreamer decoding functions are not isolated, and process + untrusted inputs, the image encoding functions are isolated via + Bubblewrap using libglycin. It's generally the responsibility of the + thumbnailing frontend (e.g. GNOME Files) to run the thumbnailing + engine in isolation. Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024). Packages open privileged ports (ports < 1024), but they have a reason to do so (TBD) Package does not expose any external endpoints Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software [Quality assurance - function/usage] The package works well right after install [Quality assurance - maintenance] The package is maintained well in Upstream and does not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs Upstream's bug tracker: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gst- thumbnailers/-/issues [Quality assurance - testing] - 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 + The package runs a test suite on build time, if it fails + it makes the build fail, link to build log https://launchpad.net/~charles05/+archive/ubuntu/gst-thumbnailers/+build/32133876 + + The package runs an autopkgtest, and is currently passing on + this TBD list of architectures, link to test logs TBD + + See, + https://salsa.debian.org/ubuntu-dev-team/gst-thumbnailers/-/tree/ubuntu/latest/debian/tests?ref_type=heads + + TODO: Awaiting initial upload to the archive to get an autopkgtest link. + + The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now + [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 + debian/watch is present and works + debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field + + TODO: - Please link to a recent build log of the package: + https://launchpadlibrarian.net/842965163/buildlog_ubuntu-resolute-amd64.gst-thumbnailers_1.0~alpha.1-1ubuntu1~ppa4_BUILDING.txt.gz + + Please attach the full output you have got from + `lintian --pedantic` as an extra post to this bug. + + Lintian overrides are present to disable nags about missing manual + pages and an unknown field Vendored-Sources-Rust. This is OK because + Lintian hasn't been taught about Rust vendoring, it seems. + + + This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. + + The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf + questions higher than medium + + Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules: + https://salsa.debian.org/ubuntu-dev-team/gst-thumbnailers/-/blob/ubuntu/latest/debian/rules?ref_type=heads [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 + Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) [Dependencies] - RULE: - In case of alternatives, the first alternative must be in main. - RULE: Depends: concrete-package-in-main | metapackage - 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: - Used check-mir from ubuntu-dev-tools to validate - TODO-A: all dependencies or recommends are 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. + Used check-mir from ubuntu-dev-tools to validate + all dependencies or recommends are in main. [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 + This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy [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. Only a selected set of Launchpad teams can own a package - RULE: in main, you can find this list here: - RULE: https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu-archive-tools/tree/lputils.py#n46 - 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 acknowledgment 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 + The owning team will be ubuntu-desktop and I have their acknowledgment for + that commitment 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/ubuntu/ubuntu-project-docs/blob/main/docs/MIR/mir-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 does not use vendored code TODO-B: - This package uses vendored code, the debian/copyright has been TODO-B: updated to cover the vendored content 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 RULE: A few times we had packages that seemed fine for the package itself, but RULE: caused quite some fallout and effort in related teams. We'd ask you to RULE: think who else might be affected by promoting this package(s) and to RULE: please coordinate with them upfront so they have time, understanding and RULE: sympathy available. RULE: Examples of the past which we admit could have been better (grows by RULE: painful lessons learned): RULE: - changing to rust coreutils forced us to update any apparmor profiles RULE that referred to these paths TODO-A: This change will not impact other teams TODO-B: This change will impact other teams TBD[, TBD] and they are TODO-B: aware due to 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
** Description changed: [Availability] TODO: The package gst-thumbnailers is already in Ubuntu universe. Not yet, https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2137704 is tracking that. The package gst-thumbnailers builds for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for architectures: amd64, amd64v3, arm64, armhf, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x https://launchpad.net/~charles05/+archive/ubuntu/gst-thumbnailers [Rationale] RULE: There must be a certain level of demand for the package The package gst-thumbnailers is required in Ubuntu main for GNOME desktop integration. gst-thumbnailers is the now officially recommended solution for thumbnailing, superceeding the Totem thumbnailers. See: https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Releng/AppOrganization/-/issues/35 The package gst-thumbnailers will generally be useful for a large part of our user base. Package gst-thumbnailers covers the same use case as totem-video-thumbnailer, but is better because it's written in a memory-safe programming language, thereby we want to replace it. There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or should go universe->main instead of this. This is the first time package will be in main All binary packages built by gst-thumbnailers need to be in main to achieve consistency with GNOME. It would be great and useful to community/processes to have the package gst-thumbnailers in Ubuntu main, but there is no definitive deadline. [Security] No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past due to the project not seeing widespread adoption yet. - 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. no `suid` or `sgid` binaries no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs Package does install services, timers or recurring jobs While GStreamer decoding functions are not isolated, and process untrusted inputs, the image encoding functions are isolated via Bubblewrap using libglycin. It's generally the responsibility of the thumbnailing frontend (e.g. GNOME Files) to run the thumbnailing engine in isolation. Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024). Packages open privileged ports (ports < 1024), but they have a reason to do so (TBD) Package does not expose any external endpoints Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software [Quality assurance - function/usage] The package works well right after install [Quality assurance - maintenance] The package is maintained well in Upstream and does not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs Upstream's bug tracker: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gst- thumbnailers/-/issues [Quality assurance - testing] The package runs a test suite on build time, if it fails it makes the build fail, link to build log https://launchpad.net/~charles05/+archive/ubuntu/gst-thumbnailers/+build/32133876 The package runs an autopkgtest, and is currently passing on this TBD list of architectures, link to test logs TBD See, https://salsa.debian.org/ubuntu-dev-team/gst-thumbnailers/-/tree/ubuntu/latest/debian/tests?ref_type=heads TODO: Awaiting initial upload to the archive to get an autopkgtest link. The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now [Quality assurance - packaging] debian/watch is present and works debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field TODO: - Please link to a recent build log of the package: https://launchpadlibrarian.net/842965163/buildlog_ubuntu-resolute-amd64.gst-thumbnailers_1.0~alpha.1-1ubuntu1~ppa4_BUILDING.txt.gz - Please attach the full output you have got from - `lintian --pedantic` as an extra post to this bug. - Lintian overrides are present to disable nags about missing manual pages and an unknown field Vendored-Sources-Rust. This is OK because Lintian hasn't been taught about Rust vendoring, it seems. - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf questions higher than medium Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules: https://salsa.debian.org/ubuntu-dev-team/gst-thumbnailers/-/blob/ubuntu/latest/debian/rules?ref_type=heads [UI standards] Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) [Dependencies] Used check-mir from ubuntu-dev-tools to validate all dependencies or recommends are in main. [Standards compliance] This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy [Maintenance/Owner] The owning team will be ubuntu-desktop and I have their acknowledgment for that commitment 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/ubuntu/ubuntu-project-docs/blob/main/docs/MIR/mir-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 does not use vendored code TODO-B: - This package uses vendored code, the debian/copyright has been TODO-B: updated to cover the vendored content 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 RULE: A few times we had packages that seemed fine for the package itself, but RULE: caused quite some fallout and effort in related teams. We'd ask you to RULE: think who else might be affected by promoting this package(s) and to RULE: please coordinate with them upfront so they have time, understanding and RULE: sympathy available. RULE: Examples of the past which we admit could have been better (grows by RULE: painful lessons learned): RULE: - changing to rust coreutils forced us to update any apparmor profiles RULE that referred to these paths TODO-A: This change will not impact other teams TODO-B: This change will impact other teams TBD[, TBD] and they are TODO-B: aware due to 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 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2137712 Title: [MIR] gst-thumbnailers To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/2137712/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
