[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
libldac 2.0.2.3+git20200429+ed310a0-4ubuntu1 in kinetic: universe/misc -> main Override [y|N]? y 1 publication overridden. ** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu) Status: In Progress => Fix Released -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
Yes, I agree. Let's downgrade #1 to a recommended TODO, as there is no upload needed otherwise. LGTM. MIR team ACK. No security review is needed, so feel free to pull it in as a dependency or seed the package. ** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu) Status: New => In Progress ** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu) Assignee: Lukas Märdian (slyon) => (unassigned) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
Thanks Lukas for the review, I think it should be ready to be considered again now > Required TODOs: > #1 please run `update-maintainer` on the package, to update debian/control We will do in the next upload (if that's not a sync since we forwarded the autopkgtest to Debian), I don't think that's worth wasting buildds time by itself now. Ok with you? > #2 It is on the lto-disabled list (for s390x only). s390x is not supported by > upstream and FTBFS, so this entry should just be removed from the list. https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lto-disabled-list/26 > #3 does NOT have a test suite that runs at build time, and it only has one > simple autopkgtest (marked "superficial"). This does not fully check the > Q/A-testing requirements, IMO. Usually a proper autopkgtest would do, but > here the autopkgtest is minimal and we don't have build-time tests... > Are there any plans for end-to-end testing of the bluetooth codec/hardware? > Could a end2end test plan/code/log be provided or stated in the comments? We created a testplan for pipewire which includes a section specific to libldac/libfreeaptx, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TestPlans/Pipewire > Recommended TODOs: > #4 The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted desktop-packages has been subscribed now > #5 build-time warnings should be resolved, working with upstream (see below) I didn't find a bugtracker for upstream (it's part of android) but for now I've reported it to Debian and we will see if we can provide a patch ** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => New ** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Lukas Märdian (slyon) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
** Description changed: [Availability] The package libldac is already in Ubuntu universe. The package libldac build for the architectures it is designed to work on, it fails on s390x but we don't support ubuntu-desktop there. Upstream doesn't support big endian, which is known and reported also for other distributions (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980372) It currently builds and works for architetcures: i386 amd64 arm64 armhf ppc64el riscv64 Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac [Rationale] - The package libldac is required in Ubuntu main as a dependency of libspa-0.2-bluetooth which is providing bluetooth support to pipewire which we plan to use as our new default sound server. - The package libldac is required in Ubuntu main no later than aug 25 due to featurefreeze [Security] - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries - no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` - Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024) - 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, the only bug report is the big-endian-build issue explained earlier in the description - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libldac - 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 upstream doesn't have one. That's something we need to work on. - BLOCKER? ^ + - The package does not run a test at build time because upstream doesn't + have one. That's something we need to work on. - The package runs an autopkgtest, and is currently passing on amd64 arm64 armhf i386 ppc64el , link to test logs https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/libl/libldac - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now + + Since audio isn't really testable at build or in autopkgtests we added a + testplan for our audio stack on + https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TestPlans/Pipewire which also covers + the dependencies include libldac [Quality assurance - packaging] - debian/watch is present and works # lintian --pedantic W: libldac source: globbing-patterns-out-of-order debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* debian/* debian/pkgconfig/ldacBT-abr.pc W: libldac source: globbing-patterns-out-of-order debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* debian/* debian/pkgconfig/ldacBT-enc.pc W: libldac source: superfluous-file-pattern debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* (Files, line 12) P: libldac source: update-debian-copyright 2019 vs 2020 [debian/copyright:14] those are minor but we will propose a patch to debian - 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 d/rules https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia- team/libldac/-/blob/debian/unstable/debian/rules [UI standards] - Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) [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] - Owning Team will be desktop-packages - Team is not yet, but will subscribe to the package before promotion - This does not use static builds - This does not use vendored code - The package successfully built during the most recent test rebuild [Background information] The Package description explains the package well Upstream Name is libldac Link to upstream project https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/libldac -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lto-disabled-list/26 fixes one of the todos -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
After a reread, I have nothing to add compared to what Christian mentioned :) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
Hi Lukas TL;DR for your questions: - yes we need the seeded-in-ubuntu statement, but wording might be improved - It is ok to be superficial (or even not) tested if shown to be reasonably covered elsewhere --- Details --- > #0 "seeded-in-ubuntu" policy: Why could this be a problem It is the inverse, the only place it is listed is when checking further dependencies. ``` TODO: - no other Dependencies to MIR due to this TODO: - checked with check-mir TODO: - not listed in seeded-in-ubuntu TODO: - none of the (potentially auto-generated) dependencies (Depends TODO: and Recommends) that are present after build are not in main ``` That check is meant to detect the following situation early on. Package `foo` shows as component mismatch and is processed. Then much later once all completed `foo` is promoted and then it shows up as additional component mismatch because `foo` depends on `bar` which also needs to be promoted. The check here is meant to spot "hey you need to file and process `bar` as well" early on to avoid late surprises. > #2 testing/qa requirements: Should we accept a single "superficial" autopkgtest as sufficient [...] ? We tried to prepare for this with recent rule changes. As you say sometimes there can only be done "so much" at the lib level (more a unittest than an actual workload). The following sections are related: ``` 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) TODO: - The package can not be tested at build or autopktest time because TBD TODO: to make up for that here TBD is a test plan/automation and example TODO: test TBD (logs/scripts) 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 ... TODO: - does have a test suite that runs at build time TODO: - test suite fails will fail the build upon error. TODO: - does have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest TODO: - if special HW does prevent build/autopkgtest is there a test plan, code, TODO: log provided? TODO: - if a non-trivial test on this level does not make sense (the lib alone TODO: is only doing rather simple things), is the overall solution (app+libs) TODO: extensively covered i.e. via end to end autopkgtest ? ``` It has to be a case by case decision. For example strictly speaking DPDK is a library, but extended tests make sense. Another lib does nothing but escaping URLs, that might be tested at a higher level. The sections above were added a while ago to make this clear. Combined they allow: - If testing at the lib makes no sense to state so and kind of "be allowed to be promoted without adding an odd test" - but at the same time by being forced to state by what it is covered instead, we ensure that it covered somewhere (otherwise lib would say need to be tested above; and above doesn't care => no test) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
I'd like to ask other fellow MIR team members some policy questions about the above: #0 "seeded-in-ubuntu" policy: Why could this be a problem (as listed in https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionProcess), do we need to update the wiki? #2 testing/qa requirements: Should we accept a single "superficial" autopkgtest as sufficient testing or require a test-plan for additional end-to-end testing? It compiles the library (using pkgconfig) and runs a single function, so confirms that the library builds/loads/executes. There isn't much more that we can do to tests such a library at runtime. (cf: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi- bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=1011314;filename=libldac.patch;msg=5) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
Review for Package: src:libldac [Summary] LDAC, LDAC/ABR is a codec by Sony, used for bluetooth headsets. The encoder is Apache-2.0 licensed and can be used by pulseaudio or pipewire to transmit audio. From a MIR POV the upstream package doesn't seem to be super well maintained (slow/sporadic updates), but it's a mature library, with a small, isolated usecase, which does not need lots of updates. So seems to be OK. 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: - libldacbt-enc2, libldacbt-abr2 Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: Notes: #0 "seeded-in-ubuntu libldac" shows that the Kubuntu/Budgie/Mate/UbuntuStudio seeds depend on this package already, IMO this is not a problem. I will confirm with the rest of the MIR team. Required TODOs: #1 please run `update-maintainer` on the package, to update debian/control #2 It is on the lto-disabled list (for s390x only). s390x is not supported by upstream and FTBFS, so this entry should just be removed from the list. #3 does NOT have a test suite that runs at build time, and it only has one simple autopkgtest (marked "superficial"). This does not fully check the Q/A-testing requirements, IMO. Usually a proper autopkgtest would do, but here the autopkgtest is minimal and we don't have build-time tests... Are there any plans for end-to-end testing of the bluetooth codec/hardware? Could a end2end test plan/code/log be provided or stated in the comments? Recommended TODOs: #4 The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted #5 build-time warnings should be resolved, working with upstream (see below) [Duplication] There is no other package in main providing the same functionality. [Dependencies] OK: - no other Dependencies to MIR due to this - checked with check-mir ("mini-soong" is a build-dependency and can stay in universe) - 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: - "seeded-in-ubuntu libldac" shows that it is being used in Kubuntu/Budgie/Mate/UbuntuStudio already, IMO this is not a problem. [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 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 - 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) Problems: None [Common blockers] OK: - does not FTBFS currently - does have a (non-trivial?!) test suite that runs as autopkgtest - no new python2 dependency - not a Python package - not a Go package Problems: - does NOT have a test suite that runs at build time - test suite failure MUST fail the build upon error. - bluetooth HW prevents end2end tests. Is there a test plan, code, log provided? [Packaging red flags] OK: - Ubuntu does carry a delta, but it is reasonable and maintenance under control, submitted to Debian in https://bugs.debian.org/1011314 - symbols tracking is in place - d/watch is present and looks ok (if needed, e.g. non-native) - Upstream update history is slow, but OK for a small library like this - Debian/Ubuntu update history is sporadic, but OK for a small library like this - the current release is packaged (+ git snapshot on top of it) - 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 Problems: - please run `update-maintainer` on the package, to update debian/control - It is on the lto-disabled list (for s390x only). s390x is not supported by upstream and FTBFS, so this entry should just be removed from the list [Upstream red flags] OK: - 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 - 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 (user visible)? Problems: - warnings during the build: In file included from src/ldaclib.c:37: src/sigana_ldac.c: In function
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu) Assignee: (unassigned) => Lukas Märdian (slyon) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
Updated the description, we have added autopkgtests now ** Description changed: [Availability] The package libldac is already in Ubuntu universe. The package libldac build for the architectures it is designed to work on, it fails on s390x but we don't support ubuntu-desktop there. - Upstream doesn't support big endian, which is known and reported also for other distributions (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980372) + Upstream doesn't support big endian, which is known and reported also for other distributions (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980372) It currently builds and works for architetcures: i386 amd64 arm64 armhf ppc64el riscv64 Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac [Rationale] - The package libldac is required in Ubuntu main as a dependency of libspa-0.2-bluetooth which is providing bluetooth support to pipewire which we plan to use as our new default sound server. - The package libldac is required in Ubuntu main no later than aug 25 - due to featurefreeze + due to featurefreeze [Security] - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries - no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` - Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024) - 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, the only bug report is the big-endian-build issue explained earlier in the description - - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug - - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libldac + - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug + - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libldac - 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 upstream doesn't have one. That's something we need to work on. BLOCKER? ^ - - The package does not run an autopkgtest because upstream has no test and Debian didn't have either. Since the package deals with hardware it's not really doable to automatically test if it's working in autopkgtest and we will probably to rely on a manual testplan instead. - BLOCKER? ^ - + - The package runs an autopkgtest, and is currently passing on + amd64 arm64 armhf i386 ppc64el , link to test logs https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/libl/libldac + - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now [Quality assurance - packaging] - debian/watch is present and works - # lintian --pedantic + # lintian --pedantic W: libldac source: globbing-patterns-out-of-order debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* debian/* debian/pkgconfig/ldacBT-abr.pc W: libldac source: globbing-patterns-out-of-order debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* debian/* debian/pkgconfig/ldacBT-enc.pc W: libldac source: superfluous-file-pattern debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* (Files, line 12) P: libldac source: update-debian-copyright 2019 vs 2020 [debian/copyright:14] those are minor but we will propose a patch to debian - 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 d/rules https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia- team/libldac/-/blob/debian/unstable/debian/rules [UI standards] - Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) [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] - Owning Team will be desktop-packages - Team is not yet, but will subscribe to the package before promotion - This does not use static builds - This does not use vendored code - The package successfully built during the most recent test rebuild [Background information] The Package description explains the package well Upstream Name is libldac Link to upstream project https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/libldac -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1973784 Title: [MIR] libldac To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug/1973784/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
[Bug 1973784] Re: [MIR] libldac
** Description changed: - needed for libspa-0.2-bluetooth needed for bluetooth support with - PipeWire + [Availability] + TODO: The package libldac is already in Ubuntu universe. + TODO: The package libldac build for the architectures it is designed to work on, it fails on s390x but we don't support ubuntu-desktop there. + TODO: Upstream doesn't support big endian, which is known and reported also for other distributions (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980372) + TODO: It currently builds and works for architetcures: i386 amd64 arm64 armhf ppc64el riscv64 + TODO: Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac + + [Rationale] + TODO: - The package libldac is required in Ubuntu main as a dependency of libspa-0.2-bluetooth which is providing bluetooth support to pipewire which we plan to use as our new default sound server. + + TODO: - The package libldac is required in Ubuntu main no later than aug 25 + TODO: due to featurefreeze + + [Security] + TODO: - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past + + TODO: - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries + TODO: - no executables in `/sbin` and `/usr/sbin` + TODO: - Package does not install services, timers or recurring jobs + TODO: - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024) + TODO: - Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software + + [Quality assurance - function/usage] + TODO: - The package works well right after install + + [Quality assurance - maintenance] + TODO: - The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu, the only bug report is the big-endian-build issue explained earlier in the description + TODO: - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac/+bug + TODO: - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=libldac + TODO: - 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 upstream doesn't have one. That's something we need to work on. + BLOCKER? ^ + + - The package does not run an autopkgtest because upstream has no test and Debian didn't have either. Since the package deals with hardware it's not really doable to automatically test if it's working in autopkgtest and we will probably to rely on a manual testplan instead. + BLOCKER? ^ + + + [Quality assurance - packaging] + TODO: - debian/watch is present and works + + # lintian --pedantic + W: libldac source: globbing-patterns-out-of-order debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* debian/* debian/pkgconfig/ldacBT-abr.pc + W: libldac source: globbing-patterns-out-of-order debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* debian/* debian/pkgconfig/ldacBT-enc.pc + W: libldac source: superfluous-file-pattern debian/copyright debian/pkgconfig/* (Files, line 12) + P: libldac source: update-debian-copyright 2019 vs 2020 [debian/copyright:14] + + those are minor but we will propose a patch to debian + + TODO: - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages. + TODO: - This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies + + TODO: - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask + debconf questions + + TODO: - Packaging and build is easy, link to d/rules + https://salsa.debian.org/multimedia- + team/libldac/-/blob/debian/unstable/debian/rules + + [UI standards] + TODO: - Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation) + + [Dependencies] + TODO: - No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet in main + + [Standards compliance] + TODO: - This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy + + [Maintenance/Owner] + TODO: - Owning Team will be desktop-packages + TODO: - Team is not yet, but will subscribe to the package before promotion + + TODO: - This does not use static builds + TODO: - This does not use vendored code + + TODO: - The package successfully built during the most recent test + rebuild + + [Background information] + TODO: The Package description explains the package well + TODO: Upstream Name is libldac + TODO: Link to upstream project https://android.googlesource.com/platform/external/libldac ** Changed in: libldac (Ubuntu) Status: Incomplete => New ** Description changed: [Availability] - TODO: The package libldac is already in Ubuntu universe. - TODO: The package libldac build for the architectures it is designed to work on, it fails on s390x but we don't support ubuntu-desktop there. - TODO: Upstream doesn't support big endian, which is known and reported also for other distributions (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1677491, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=980372) - TODO: It currently builds and works for architetcures: i386 amd64 arm64 armhf ppc64el riscv64 - TODO: Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libldac + The package libldac is already in Ubuntu universe. + The package libldac build for