** Description changed: Setting as incomplete while I gather more information and finish the paperwork here. [Availability] The package flite is already in Ubuntu universe. The package flite build for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for architectures: all Ubuntu architectures (including i386) Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flite [Rationale] - The package flite is required in Ubuntu main to enable speech synthesis in webkit2gtk as was done in Debian. TODO-A: - The package flite will generally be useful for a large part of TODO-A: our user base TODO-B: - The package flite will not generally be useful for a large part of TODO-B: our user base, but is important/helpful still because TBD TODO: - Additional reasons TBD TODO: - Additionally new use-cases enabled by this are TBD TODO: - Package flite covers the same use case as TBD, but is better TODO: because TBD, thereby we want to replace it. - The package flite is a new runtime dependency of package webkit2gtk that we already support - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or should go universe->main instead of this. webkit2gtk's speech synthesis feature works with either flite or libspiel but libspiel is not packaged in Debian or Ubuntu. - It would be great and useful to community/processes to have the package flite in Ubuntu main, but there is no definitive deadline. [Security] RULE: The security history and the current state of security issues in the RULE: package must allow us to support the package for at least 9 months (120 RULE: for LTS+ESM support) without exposing its users to an inappropriate level RULE: of security risks. This requires checking of several things: RULE: - Search in the National Vulnerability Database using the PKG as keyword RULE: https://cve.mitre.org/cve/search_cve_list.html RULE: - check OSS security mailing list (feed into search engine RULE: 'site:www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security <pkgname>') RULE: - Ubuntu CVE Tracker RULE: https://ubuntu.com/security/cve?package=<source-package-name> RULE: - Debian Security Tracker RULE: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/<source-package-name> TODO-A: - Had #TBD security issues in the past TODO-A: - TBD links to such security issues in trackers TODO-A: - TBD to any context that shows how these issues got handled in TODO-A: the past TODO-B: - 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] RULE: - After installing the package it must be possible to make it working with RULE: a reasonable effort of configuration and documentation reading. TODO-A: - The package works well right after install TODO-B: - The package needs post install configuration or reading of TODO-B: documentation, there isn't a safe default because TBD [Quality assurance - maintenance] RULE: - To support a package, we must be reasonably convinced that upstream RULE: supports and cares for the package. RULE: - The status of important bugs in Debian, Ubuntu and upstream's bug RULE: tracking systems must be evaluated. Important bugs must be pointed out RULE: and discussed in the MIR report. TODO: - The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream and does TODO: not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs TODO: - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flite/+bug TODO: - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=flite 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 + + flite was in Ubuntu main from Ubuntu 6.06 LTS until it was no longer + required for Build-Depends to be in main. The paperwork was simpler + then! + + https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionReportFlite
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to flite in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2096940 Title: [MIR] flite Status in flite package in Ubuntu: Incomplete Bug description: Setting as incomplete while I gather more information and finish the paperwork here. [Availability] The package flite is already in Ubuntu universe. The package flite build for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for architectures: all Ubuntu architectures (including i386) Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flite [Rationale] - The package flite is required in Ubuntu main to enable speech synthesis in webkit2gtk as was done in Debian. TODO-A: - The package flite will generally be useful for a large part of TODO-A: our user base TODO-B: - The package flite will not generally be useful for a large part of TODO-B: our user base, but is important/helpful still because TBD TODO: - Additional reasons TBD TODO: - Additionally new use-cases enabled by this are TBD TODO: - Package flite covers the same use case as TBD, but is better TODO: because TBD, thereby we want to replace it. - The package flite is a new runtime dependency of package webkit2gtk that we already support - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or should go universe->main instead of this. webkit2gtk's speech synthesis feature works with either flite or libspiel but libspiel is not packaged in Debian or Ubuntu. - It would be great and useful to community/processes to have the package flite in Ubuntu main, but there is no definitive deadline. [Security] RULE: The security history and the current state of security issues in the RULE: package must allow us to support the package for at least 9 months (120 RULE: for LTS+ESM support) without exposing its users to an inappropriate level RULE: of security risks. This requires checking of several things: RULE: - Search in the National Vulnerability Database using the PKG as keyword RULE: https://cve.mitre.org/cve/search_cve_list.html RULE: - check OSS security mailing list (feed into search engine RULE: 'site:www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security <pkgname>') RULE: - Ubuntu CVE Tracker RULE: https://ubuntu.com/security/cve?package=<source-package-name> RULE: - Debian Security Tracker RULE: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/<source-package-name> TODO-A: - Had #TBD security issues in the past TODO-A: - TBD links to such security issues in trackers TODO-A: - TBD to any context that shows how these issues got handled in TODO-A: the past TODO-B: - 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] RULE: - After installing the package it must be possible to make it working with RULE: a reasonable effort of configuration and documentation reading. TODO-A: - The package works well right after install TODO-B: - The package needs post install configuration or reading of TODO-B: documentation, there isn't a safe default because TBD [Quality assurance - maintenance] RULE: - To support a package, we must be reasonably convinced that upstream RULE: supports and cares for the package. RULE: - The status of important bugs in Debian, Ubuntu and upstream's bug RULE: tracking systems must be evaluated. Important bugs must be pointed out RULE: and discussed in the MIR report. TODO: - The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream and does TODO: not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs TODO: - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flite/+bug TODO: - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=flite 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 flite was in Ubuntu main from Ubuntu 6.06 LTS until it was no longer required for Build-Depends to be in main. The paperwork was simpler then! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionReportFlite To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/flite/+bug/2096940/+subscriptions -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages Post to : touch-packages@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~touch-packages More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
