Review for Package: dh-elpa
[Summary]
A small helper (for build time), well packaged and up top date.
The weak self-tests already got identified by the reporter and adressed
upfront (thanks).
I found nothing else that seems to be concerning.
MIR team ACK under the constraint to resolve the below listed
required TODOs and as much as possible having a look at the
recommended TODOs.
This does not need a security review
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: dh-elpa-helper
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: dh-elpa
Required TODOs:
- Please finish and upload your improvements (primarily testing)
- Please sort out if Desktop or Foundations will subscribe to this
on promotion of the package
Recommended TODOs:
- None
[Duplication]
There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.
[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this (as long as we keep it reduced
to dh-elpa-helper)
- no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
[Embedded sources and static linking]
OK:
- no embedded source present
- no static linking
- does not have odd Built-Using entries
- not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
[Security]
OK:
- history of CVEs does not look concerning
- does not run a daemon as root
- does not use webkit1,2
- does not use lib*v8 directly
- does not parse data formats (minmally and only build time)
- does not open a port/socket
- does not process arbitrary web content
- does not use centralized online accounts
- does not integrate arbitrary javascript into the desktop
- does not deal with system authentication (eg, pam), etc)
- does not deal with security attestation (secure boot, tpm, signatures)
[Common blockers]
OK:
- does not FTBFS currently
- if special HW does prevent build/autopkgtest is there a test plan, code,
log provided?
- if a non-trivial test on this level does not make sense (the lib alone
is only doing rather simple things), is the overall solution (app+libs)
extensively covered i.e. via end to end autopkgtest ?
- no new python2 dependency
Problems:
- As already identified by Lukas and suggested with a debdiff, tests are weak
but can be added.
[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does carry a delta, but it is reasonable and maintenance under
control
- symbols tracking not applicable for this kind of code.
- d/watch is present and looks ok (if needed, e.g. non-native)
- Upstream (Debian = upstream) update history is good
- Ubuntu update history is ok
- the current release is packaged (as part of the provided debdiff
that will be uploaded before promoting this one)
- promoting this does not seem to cause issues for MOTUs that so far
maintained the package
- no massive Lintian warnings
- d/rules is rather clean
- It is not on the lto-disabled list
[Upstream red flags]
OK:
- no Errors/warnings during the build
- no incautious use of malloc/sprintf (as far as we can check it)
- no use of sudo, gksu, pkexec, or LD_LIBRARY_PATH (usage is OK inside
tests)
- no use of user nobody
- no use of setuid
- use of setuid, but ok because <TBD> (prefer systemd to set those
for services)
- no important open bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu
- no dependency on webkit, qtwebkit, seed or libgoa-*
- not part of the UI for extra checks
- no translation present, but none needed for this case (dev only)
** Changed in: dh-elpa (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
** Changed in: dh-elpa (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Christian Ehrhardt (paelzer) => (unassigned)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1951066
Title:
[MIR] dh-elpa
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cmake/+bug/1951066/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
