FYI Based on the "already in main and has no exclusion" I was promoting liblastlog-2 that was blocking proposed migration of the new util-linux.
./change-override --component main --suite questing-proposed liblastlog2-2 Override component to main liblastlog2-2 2.41-4ubuntu2 in questing amd64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main liblastlog2-2 2.41-4ubuntu2 in questing arm64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main liblastlog2-2 2.41-4ubuntu2 in questing armhf: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main liblastlog2-2 2.41-4ubuntu2 in questing i386: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main liblastlog2-2 2.41-4ubuntu2 in questing ppc64el: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main liblastlog2-2 2.41-4ubuntu2 in questing riscv64: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main liblastlog2-2 2.41-4ubuntu2 in questing s390x: universe/libs/optional/100% -> main Override [y|N]? y 7 publications overridden. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Touch seeded packages, which is subscribed to util-linux in Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2113961 Title: [MIR] liblastlog2-2 Status in util-linux package in Ubuntu: New Bug description: Disclaimer: this template is not fully filled up. I'd like to have the feeling of the MIR team on this bug before actually spending more time going further, given that we're talking about `util-linux`, which is one of the few very essential packages of a Linux system, and we won't have much of choice other than promoting liblastlog2-2 to main. I've already completed some parts of the template, to show that promoting this shouldn't be too much of a problem anyway, because the package is generally speaking well maintained. [Availability] The package src:util-linux is already in Ubuntu main. The package src:util-linux build for the architectures it is designed to work on. It currently builds and works for architectures: amd64, arm64, armhf, i386, ppc64el, riscv64, s390x Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/util-linux [Rationale] Okay, it seems the MIR template doesn't apply well for this use-case, because it more or less assumes that the MIR is about a source package that is currently in universe. In the current situation, only an existing binary package needs to be promoted, from a source package already in main. I'll do my best to adapt the template and provide a good rational. - bin:liblastlog2-2 is provided by src:util-linux, and was already there in plucky/universe. - The package src:util-linux is generally useful for a large part of our user base: it provides the bin:util-linux package, that is even flagged as `Essential: yes`. This is the package providing, among many other things, the `su`, `fsck`, `flock`, or `mkswap` binaries, all mostly essential to any system (random selection of important commands to give a quick example). - The package bin:liblastlog2-2 is a new runtime dependency of package bin:util-linux that we already support. - The binary packages liblastlog2-2 needs to be in main to have the latest merge of util-linux migrate from questing-proposed to questing. - All other binary packages currently in universe built by src:util-linux should remain in universe. - The package bin:liblastlog2-2 is required in Ubuntu main no later than somewhere in July due to some partners requiring patches to be SRU'd to Noble, and thus needing the package to migrate from -proposed (even though it's not a hard block from the SRU team, according to what I've red on Matrix recently). [Security] - Obviously, util-linux has had some security issues in the past (although not that much): - https://ubuntu.com/security/cves?package=util-linux - https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/source-package/util-linux - Those issues seems to be handled correctly in both Ubuntu and Debian: - https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2024-28085 - https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2024-28085 - https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2021-37600 - There are countless binaries in sbin, but I'm fairly confident taking them out is a big plan of its own to still have a working system. - There are just a couple systemd units: - fstrim.{service,timer}: Discard unused filesystem blocks once a week - lastlog2-import.service: Import lastlog data into lastlog2 database - run only once in some particular situations to handle a data migration - About common isolation/risk-mitigation: - I'm not sure anything in util-linux is opening privileged ports. - I know some binaries are dropping privileges. - Going much further on that topic would be a full audit, for which I unfortunately don't really have time and competency for. I hope that's okay. - Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software (filters, scanners, plugins, UI skins, ...) [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/util-linux/+bugs?orderby=-importance&start=0 - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=util-linux - Upstream https://github.com/util-linux/util-linux/issues - Obviously this package has tons of bugs opened, but at the same time, it has a lot of activity, and is well maintained upstream, in Debian, and in Ubuntu, just because of its central position in any Linux system. - 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 TBD - The package runs an autopkgtest, and is currently passing on all architectures but i386: https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/util-linux - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now [Quality assurance - packaging] - debian/watch is present and works - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field - This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors - Recent build: https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/util-linux/2.41-4ubuntu2/+build/30908305 - Lintian overrides are present, but ok because most are well commented, and the rest is pretty obvious, like highly privileged binaries. - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf questions higher than medium - Packaging is quite complex, but I'm not sure how much of a choice we have. Good thing is that this package is equally important in Debian, so it will very likely keep being maintained. [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/ubuntu/ubuntu-project-docs/blob/main/docs/MIR/mir-rust.md RULE: - An example of how Rust dependency vendoring can be automated is RULE: "s390-tools", isolating crates in a .orig-vendor.tar.xz tarball: RULE: * https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/s390-tools/tree/debian/rules RULE: Other examples include "authd" (for a native package, combined with RULE: Golang vendoring) and "gnome-snapshot" (using debian/missing-sources): RULE: * authd: RULE: https://github.com/ubuntu/authd/blob/main/debian/rules RULE: * gnome-snapshot: RULE: https://salsa.debian.org/ubuntu-dev-team/snapshot/-/blob/ubuntu/latest/debian/README.source RULE: - All vendored dependencies (no matter what language) shall have a RULE: way to be refreshed TODO-A: - This does not use static builds TODO-B: - The team TBD is aware of the implications by a static build and TODO-B: commits to test no-change-rebuilds and to fix any issues found for the TODO-B: lifetime of the release (including ESM) TODO-A: - This does not use vendored code TODO-B: - The team TBD is aware of the implications of vendored code and (as TODO-B: alerted by the security team) commits to provide updates and backports TODO-B: to the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime TODO-B: of the release (including ESM). TODO-A: - This does not use vendored code TODO-B: - This package uses vendored go code tracked in go.sum as shipped in the TODO-B: package, refreshing that code is outlined in debian/README.source TODO-C: - This package uses vendored rust code tracked in Cargo.lock as shipped, TODO-C: in the package (at /usr/share/doc/<pkgname>/Cargo.lock - might be TODO-C: compressed), refreshing that code is outlined in debian/README.source TODO-D: - This package uses vendored code, refreshing that code is outlined TODO-D: in debian/README.source TODO-A: - This 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 To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/util-linux/+bug/2113961/+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
