** Description changed:
[Availability]
The package libva is already in Ubuntu universe.
The package libva build for the architectures it is designed to work on.
It currently builds and works for all Ubuntu architectures
Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libva
[Rationale]
- The package libva is required in Ubuntu main for gnome-remote-desktop
- The package libva will generally be useful for a large part of our user base
- The package libva is a new runtime dependency of package
gnome-remote-desktop 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.
- The binary package TBD needs to be in main to achieve keeping
gnome-remote-desktop up-to-date and supported.
- The package libva is required in Ubuntu main no later than February 20
due to Ubuntu 25.04 Feature Freeze. Practically, we will likely need a
Feature Freeze Exception for this.
[Security]
- Had 1 security issue in the past
https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2023-39929
https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2023-39929
The CVE is unclear; it might not have affected Ubuntu.
- no `suid` or `sgid` binaries
- no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin`
- Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs
- Security has been kept in mind and common isolation/risk-mitigation
patterns are in place utilizing the following features:
+ apparmor profile copied from evince
- 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 Debian/Ubuntu/Upstream and does not have
too many, long-term & critical, open bugs
+ Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libva
+ Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libva
+ Upstream https://github.com/intel/libva/issues
- The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support
[Quality assurance - testing]
- The package does not run a test at build time because none is provided
upstream because it is difficult to test hardware accelerated video processing
with build tests.
- The package does not run an autopkgtest because it is difficult to
test hardware accelerated video processing with autopkgtests.
- 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 can not be well tested at build or autopkgtest time because it
is difficult to test hardware accelerated video processing that way. To make up
for that:
+ + We have access to such hardware in the team
+ + Based on that access outlined above, here are the details of the test
plan/automation
+
+ test plan is in comments but will be moved to wiki
+
+ + We will execute that test plan on-uploads regularly (for SRUs and at
+ Feature Freeze)
+
+ - This package is minimal and will be tested in a more wide reaching solution
+ https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TestPlans/RemoteDesktop
+
+ The initial gnome-remote-desktop implementation in gnome-remote-desktop
+ 48 Beta hides the new zero copy feature behind a debug flag but it is
+ expected to be the default in later GNOME/Ubuntu releases.
[Quality assurance - packaging]
- debian/watch is present and works
- debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field
- This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors
- Lintian overrides are not present
- This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages.
- This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies
- The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf questions
- Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules
https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia-team/libva/-/blob/master/debian/rules
[UI standards]
- Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation or .desktop
file)
[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 Desktop Packages and I have their acknowledgement
for that commitment
- The future owning team is not yet subscribed, but will subscribe to the
package before promotion
- This does not use static builds
- This does not use vendored code
- This package is not rust based
- The package has been built within the last 3 months in the archive
- Build link on launchpad: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libva/2.22.0-1
[Background information]
The Package description explains the package well
Upstream Name is libva
Link to upstream project https://github.com/intel/libva
libva was previously in main but was demoted once it was no longer required
for build dependencies to be in main
previous MIR: LP: #597354
** Changed in: libva (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => New
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2097800
Title:
[MIR] libva
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libva/+bug/2097800/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
