** Description changed: [Availability] - This package rust-hwlib is published to the PPA: https://launchpad.net/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert, it'is NOT part of the universe. We have an exception to publish it directly to main, since this library will help the development of solutions that affect Canonical customers directly. Please check with ~paelzer for more information. - The package rust-hwlib build for the architectures it is designed to work on. - It currently builds and works for architectures: riscv64, arm64, ppc64el, armhf, s390x, amd64 - Link to package: https://launchpad.net/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert/+packages [Rationale] - This package rust-hwlib is part of the [hardware-api](https://github.com/canonical/hardware-api) project, owned and developed by Canonical Certification team. - It will be used to retrieve information about the machine and check its certification status. + It will be used by Ubuntu pro-client to retrieve information about the machine and check its certification status. - The package rust-hwlib will generally be useful for a large number of users who use Ubuntu and want see what components have been tested and certified and for which Ubuntu releases - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or should go universe->main instead of this. - The package rust-hwlib is required in Ubuntu main no later than October 10th due to Oracular's release date, so users and Canonical customer can install it for the latest Ubuntu release [Security] - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries - no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` - Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024). - 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://github.com/canonical/hardware-api/issues - The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support [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/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert/+build/28642997/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-oracular-amd64.rust-hwlib_0.0.1~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz 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 + - 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 + - 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 + - Lintian overrides are not present + - This package only has minor lintian pedantic warnings + # lintian --pedantic rust-hwlib_0.0.1\~ppa1_source.changes + P: rust-hwlib source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 12 + P: rust-hwlib source: uses-debhelper-compat-file [debian/compat] - 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 + - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. + - 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 + - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf + questions - 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 + - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules: + https://github.com/canonical/hardware- + api/blob/main/client/hwlib/debian/rules [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 [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. + - No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet 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. - 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 + - The owning team will be ~hardware-certification and I have their acknowledgement for + that commitment + - The future owning team is already subscribed to the package - 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: - Right now that tooling to get a Cargo.lock that will include internal - RULE: vendored dependencies isn't in place yet (expect a dh-cargo change - RULE: later). Until it is available, as a fallback one can scan the - RULE: directory at build time and let it be generated in debian/rules. - RULE: An example might look like: - RULE: debian/rules: - RULE: override_dh_auto_test: - RULE: CARGO_HOME=debian /usr/share/cargo/bin/cargo test --offline - RULE: debian/<pkg>.install: - RULE: Cargo.lock /usr/share/doc/<pkg> - RULE: debian/config.toml - RULE: # Use the vendorized sources to produce the Cargo.lock file. This - RULE: # can be performed by pointing $CARGO_HOME to the path containing - RULE: # this file. - RULE: [source] - RULE: [source.my-vendor-source] - RULE: directory = "vendor" - RULE: [source.crates-io] - RULE: replace-with = "my-vendor-source" + - This does not use static builds - 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) + - The team ~hardware-certification is aware of the implications of vendored code and (as + alerted by the security team) commits to provide updates and backports + to the security team for any affected vendored code for the 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). + - This package uses vendored rust code tracked in Cargo.lock in the repo: + https://github.com/canonical/hardware-api/blob/main/Cargo.lock - 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 + - This package is rust based and vendors all non language-runtime + dependencies - TODO-A: - This package is not rust based - TODO-B: - This package is rust based and vendors all non language-runtime - TODO-B: dependencies + - The package has been built within the last 3 months in PPA + - Build link on launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert/+packages - 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 + [Background information]= + - The Package description explains the package well + - Upstream Name is hwlib + - Link to upstream project https://github.com/canonical/hardware-api/tree/main/client/hwlib
** Description changed: [Availability] - This package rust-hwlib is published to the PPA: https://launchpad.net/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert, - it'is NOT part of the universe. We have an exception to publish it directly to main, since this library - will help the development of solutions that affect Canonical customers directly. - Please check with ~paelzer for more information. + it'is NOT part of the universe. We have an exception to publish it directly to main, since this library + will help the development of solutions that affect Canonical customers directly. + Please check with ~paelzer for more information. - The package rust-hwlib build for the architectures it is designed to work on. - It currently builds and works for architectures: riscv64, arm64, ppc64el, armhf, s390x, amd64 - Link to package: https://launchpad.net/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert/+packages [Rationale] - This package rust-hwlib is part of the [hardware-api](https://github.com/canonical/hardware-api) - project, owned and developed by Canonical Certification team. - It will be used by Ubuntu pro-client to retrieve information about the machine and check its certification status. + project, owned and developed by Canonical Certification team. + It will be used by Ubuntu pro-client to retrieve information about the machine and check its certification status. - The package rust-hwlib will generally be useful for a large number of users who use Ubuntu and - want see what components have been tested and certified and for which Ubuntu releases + want see what components have been tested and certified and for which Ubuntu releases - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or - should go universe->main instead of this. + should go universe->main instead of this. - The package rust-hwlib is required in Ubuntu main no later than October 10th due to Oracular's - release date, so users and Canonical customer can install it for the latest Ubuntu release + release date, so users and Canonical customer can install it for the latest Ubuntu release [Security] - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries - no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` - Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024). - 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://github.com/canonical/hardware-api/issues + not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs + - Upstream's bug tracker: https://github.com/canonical/hardware-api/issues - The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support [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/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert/+build/28642997/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-oracular-amd64.rust-hwlib_0.0.1~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz + it makes the build fail, link to build log: + https://launchpad.net/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert/+build/28642997/+files/buildlog_ubuntu-oracular-amd64.rust-hwlib_0.0.1~ppa1_BUILDING.txt.gz 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: 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: 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: 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: 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] - debian/watch is not present because it is a native package - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field - Lintian overrides are not present - This package only has minor lintian pedantic warnings # lintian --pedantic rust-hwlib_0.0.1\~ppa1_source.changes P: rust-hwlib source: package-uses-old-debhelper-compat-version 12 P: rust-hwlib source: uses-debhelper-compat-file [debian/compat] - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. - This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf questions - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules: https://github.com/canonical/hardware- api/blob/main/client/hwlib/debian/rules [UI standards] - Application is not end-user facing [Dependencies] - No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet in main [Standards compliance] - This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy [Maintenance/Owner] - The owning team will be ~hardware-certification and I have their acknowledgement for - that commitment + that commitment - The future owning team is already subscribed to the package - This does not use static builds - The team ~hardware-certification is aware of the implications of vendored code and (as - alerted by the security team) commits to provide updates and backports - to the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime - of the release (including ESM). + alerted by the security team) commits to provide updates and backports + to the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime + of the release (including ESM). - This package uses vendored rust code tracked in Cargo.lock in the repo: - https://github.com/canonical/hardware-api/blob/main/Cargo.lock + https://github.com/canonical/hardware-api/blob/main/Cargo.lock - This package is rust based and vendors all non language-runtime - dependencies + dependencies - The package has been built within the last 3 months in PPA - Build link on launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~nhutsko/+archive/ubuntu/hwcert/+packages - [Background information]= + [Background information] - The Package description explains the package well - Upstream Name is hwlib - Link to upstream project https://github.com/canonical/hardware-api/tree/main/client/hwlib -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2072561 Title: [MIR] rust-hwlib To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/2072561/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
