Review for Source Package: ruby-rackup
[Summary]
MIR team ACK.
From the opinion of the MIR team, this is a well-structured, well-maintained
package that meets a specific need and does not have any major red flags
related to maintainability, security, testing, or otherwise. The ubuntu-server
team is already committed to ownership of this package.
This does not need a security review.
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: ruby-rackup
Notes:
No TODOs are required before promotion.
[Rationale, Duplication and Ownership]
There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.
A team is committed to own long term maintenance of this package - ubuntu-server
The rationale given in the report seems valid and useful for Ubuntu
[Dependencies]
OK:
no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
ruby-rackup checked with `check-mir`
all dependencies can be found in `seeded-in-ubuntu` (already in main)
none of the (potentially auto-generated) dependencies (Depends and Recommends)
that are present after build are not in main
no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
No dependencies in main that are only superficially tested requiring more tests
now.
Problems: None
[Embedded sources and static linking]
OK:
no embedded source present
no static linking
does not have unexpected Built-Using entries
OK:
not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
No vendoring used, all Built-Using are in main
not a rust package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
Does not include vendored code
Problems: None
[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 (files [images, video, audio,
xml, json, asn.1], network packets, structures, ...) from
an untrusted source - though it should be noted that ruby-rack does.
does not expose any external endpoint (port/socket/... or similar) -
ruby-rackup does expose an endpoint at localhost:9292 by default which could
potentially be a source of vulnerability.
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)
does not deal with cryptography (en-/decryption, certificates,
signing, ...)
this makes appropriate (for its exposure) use of established risk
mitigation features (dropping permissions, using temporary environments,
restricted users/groups, seccomp, systemd isolation features,
apparmor, ...)
Problems: None
[Common blockers]
OK:
does not FTBFS currently
does have a test suite that runs at build time
test suite fails will fail the build upon error.
does have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
This does not need special HW for build or test
no new python2 dependency
Problems: None
[Packaging red flags]
OK:
Ubuntu does carry a delta, but it is reasonable and maintenance under control -
one patch ‘avoid-relative-require.patch’
symbols tracking not applicable for this kind of code.
debian/watch is present and looks ok (if needed, e.g. non-native)
Upstream update history is slow though there is not a large backlog of issues
or PRs
Debian/Ubuntu update history is slow
The Ubuntu and Debian version (2.1.0-4) is slightly behind the upstream 2.2.0
though the difference is minor.
promoting this does not seem to cause issues for MOTUs that so far maintained
the package.
No massive Lintian warnings
debian/rules is rather clean
It is not on the lto-disabled list
Problems: None
[Upstream red flags]
OK:
no Errors/warnings during the build
no incautious use of malloc/sprintf (as far as we can check it)
no incautious use of malloc/sprintf (the language has no direct MM)
no use of sudo, gksu, pkexec, or LD_LIBRARY_PATH (usage is OK inside tests)
no use of user 'nobody' outside of tests
no use of setuid / setgid
no important open bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu
no dependency on webkit, qtwebkit or libseed
not part of the UI for extra checks
no translation present, but none needed for this case
Problems: None
** Changed in: ruby-rackup (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Myles Penner (mylesjp) => (unassigned)
** Changed in: ruby-rackup (Ubuntu)
Status: New => In Progress
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2115399
Title:
[MIR] ruby-rackup
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ruby-rackup/+bug/2115399/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
