** Description changed: [Availability] The package papers is already in Ubuntu universe. The package papers build for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for architectures: every Ubuntu release architecture except for i386 and armhf. armhf is not an Ubuntu Desktop architecture. There is a Rust toolchain issue on armhf affecting some apps like papers. Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/papers [Rationale] There must be a certain level of demand for the package - - The package papers is required in Ubuntu main for + - The package papers is required in Ubuntu main for - The package papers will generally be useful for a large part of our user base - Package papers covers the same use case as evince, but is better because it is much more actively maintained than evince and GNOME is switching from evince to papers, thereby we want to replace evince. - 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 papers needs to be in main to achieve providing the best maintained and integrated standalone PDF viewer in Ubuntu - The package papers is required in Ubuntu main no later than August 2025 due to Ubuntu 25.10 Feature Freeze and a desire to make this swap before Ubuntu 26.04 LTS. [Security] - Had multiple security issues in the past https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/evince https://ubuntu.com/security/cve?package=evince I am linking to evince because papers is a fork of evince. - 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 Papers is expected to be able to frequently parse and view untrusted - PDFs. + PDFs, although poppler is the library that should be doing most of that + work. [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/papers + Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=papers + Upstream https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/Incubator/papers/-/issues - The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support [Quality assurance - testing] TODO-A: - The package runs a test suite on build time, if it fails TODO-A: it makes the build fail, link to build log TBD TODO-B: - The package does not run a test at build time because TBD RULE: - The package should, but is not required to, also contain RULE: non-trivial autopkgtest(s). TODO-A: - The package runs an autopkgtest, and is currently passing on TODO-A: this TBD list of architectures, link to test logs TBD TODO-B: - The package does not run an autopkgtest because TBD RULE: - existing but failing tests that shall be handled as "ok to fail" RULE: need to be explained along the test logs below TODO-A: - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now TODO-B: - The package does have failing autopkgtests tests right now, but since TODO-B: they always failed they are handled as "ignored failure", this is TODO-B: ok because TBD RULE: - If no build tests nor autopkgtests are included, and/or if the package RULE: requires specific hardware to perform testing, the subscribed team RULE: must provide a written test plan in a comment to the MIR bug, and RULE: commit to running that test either at each upload of the package or RULE: at least once each release cycle. In the comment to the MIR bug, RULE: please link to the codebase of these tests (scripts or doc of manual RULE: steps) and attach a full log of these test runs. This is meant to RULE: assess their validity (e.g. not just superficial). RULE: If possible such things should stay in universe. Sometimes that is RULE: impossible due to the way how features/plugins/dependencies work RULE: but if you are going to ask for promotion of something untestable RULE: please outline why it couldn't provide its value (e.g. by splitting RULE: binaries) to users from universe. RULE: This is a balance that is hard to strike well, the request is that all RULE: options have been exploited before giving up. Look for more details RULE: and backgrounds https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/30 RULE: Just like in the SRU process it is worth to understand what the RULE: consequences a regression (due to a test miss) would be. Therefore RULE: if being untestable we ask to outline what consequences this would RULE: have for the given package. And let us be honest, even if you can RULE: test you are never sure you will be able to catch all potential RULE: regressions. So this is mostly to force self-awareness of the owning RULE: team than to make a decision on. TODO: - The package can not be well tested at build or autopkgtest time TODO: because TBD. To make up for that: TODO-A: - We have access to such hardware in the team TODO-B: - We have allocated budget to get this hardware, but it is not here TODO-B: yet TODO-C: - We have checked with solutions-qa and will use their hardware TODO-C: through testflinger TODO-D: - We have checked with other team TBD and will use their hardware TODO-D: through TBD (eg. MAAS) TODO-E: - We have checked and found a simulator which covers this case TODO-E: sufficiently for testing, our plan to use it is TBD TODO-F: - We have engaged with the upstream community and due to that TODO-F: can tests new package builds via TBD TODO-G: - We have engaged with our user community and due to that TODO-G: can tests new package builds via TBD TODO-H: - We have engaged with the hardware manufacturer and made an TODO-H: agreement to test new builds via TBD TODO-A-H: - Based on that access outlined above, here are the details of the TODO-A-H: test plan/automation TBD (e.g. script or repo) and (if already TODO-A-H: possible) example output of a test run: TBD (logs). TODO-A-H: We will execute that test plan TODO-A-H1: on-uploads TODO-A-H2: regularly (TBD details like frequency: monthly, infra: jira-url) TODO-X: - We have exhausted all options, there really is no feasible way TODO-X: to test or recreate this. We are aware of the extra implications TODO-X: and duties this has for our team (= help SEG and security on TODO-X: servicing this package, but also more effort on any of your own TODO-X: bug triage and fixes). TODO-X: Due to TBD there also is no way to provide this to users from TODO-X: universe. TODO-X: Due to the nature, integration and use cases of the package the TODO-X: consequences of a regression that might slip through most likely TODO-X: would include TODO-X: - TBD TODO-X: - TBD TODO-X: - TBD RULE: - In some cases a solution that is about to be promoted consists of RULE: several very small libraries and one actual application uniting them RULE: to achieve something useful. This is rather common in the go/rust space. RULE: In that case often these micro-libs on their own can and should only RULE: provide low level unit-tests. But more complex autopkgtests make no RULE: sense on that level. Therefore in those cases one might want to test on RULE: the solution level. RULE: - Process wise MIR-requesting teams can ask (on the bug) for this RULE: special case to apply for a given case, which reduces the test RULE: constraints on the micro libraries but in return increases the RULE: requirements for the test of the actual app/solution. RULE: - Since this might promote micro-lib packages to main with less than RULE: the common level of QA any further MIRed program using them will have RULE: to provide the same amount of increased testing. TODO: - This package is minimal and will be tested in a more wide reaching TODO: solution context TBD, details about this testing are here TBD [Quality assurance - packaging] - debian/watch is present and works - 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 - 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 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 https://salsa.debian.org/gnome- team/papers/-/blob/debian/latest/debian/rules [UI standards] - Application is end-user facing, Translation is present, via standard intltool/gettext or similar build and runtime internationalization system - End-user application that ships a standard conformant desktop file [Dependencies] - 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 [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 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] The Package description explains the package well Upstream Name is Papers Link to upstream project https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/Incubator/papers Papers was forked from Evince around May 2024. The Papers developers were frustrated that their efforts to improve Evince with merge requests to switch to GTK4 and switch some code from C to rust had been ignored for too long. After the fork, Evince has had minimal development, while Papers has had rapid development with a much larger pool of contributors. GNOME is expected to switch from Evince to Papers for GNOME Core for GNOME 49 (September 2025 release). The tracking bug for that is https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Releng/AppOrganization/-/issues/24 Compared to Evince, these features have been removed: - support for DVI, PostScript and XPS formats. Evince had disabled support for Postscript by default after a security vulnerability years ago but Ubuntu and most distros overrode that behavior change. Microsoft abandoned XPS years ago. - screen reader support isn't working yet (because of the GTK4 port) but this is being worked on and Firefox is able to read PDFs well. Evince's screen reader support is awkward to use. This feature has been added: - menu item to digitally sign a document with certificates such as those present in the national ID for Spain. And some verification of signed documents. Evince or Papers also provides the Print Preview feature for the GTK print dialog.
-- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2097727 Title: [MIR] papers To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/papers/+bug/2097727/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
