Public bug reported: Availability: ubuntu-push-client is in universe
Rationale: The client communicates with ubuntu-push-server, which enables push/pull functionality for a bunch of apps (e.g. gmail, dekko, etc). Quality assurance: After installing the package it must be possible to make it working with a reasonable effort of configuration and documentation reading. - This is currently possible-ish. The package must not ask debconf questions higher than medium if it is going to be installed by default. The debconf questions must have reasonable defaults. - I don't know what this means, sorry. There are no long-term outstanding bugs which affect the usability of the program to a major degree. To support a package, we must be reasonably convinced that upstream supports and cares for the package. - There are several, e.g. cgo pointer checks have been disabled and multiple unit tests have been disable because they are too flaky. The status of important bugs in Debian's, Ubuntu's, and upstream's bug tracking systems must be evaluated. Links to these bug trackers need to be provided in the MIR report. Important bugs must be pointed out and discussed in the MIR report. - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-push/+bug/1555198 - https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-push/+bug/1577723 - Full list: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-push/ The package is maintained well in Debian/Ubuntu (check out the Debian PTS) - Launchpad The package should not deal with exotic hardware which we cannot support. - N/A If the package ships a test suite, and there is no obvious reason why it cannot work during build (e. g. it needs root privileges or network access), it should be run during package build, and a failing test suite should fail the build. - There is a suite, and it is run at build. The package uses a debian/watch file whenever possible. In cases where this is not possible (e. g. native packages), the package should either provide a debian/README.source file or a debian/watch file (with comments only) providing clear instructions on how to generate the source tar file. - I don't know what this means, sorry. End-user applications must be internationalized (translatable), using the standard intltool/gettext build and runtime system and produce a proper PO template during build. - It is translated. Not many things are user facing in u-p-c. End-user applications must ship a standard conformant desktop file. - N/A Dependencies: All binary dependencies (including Recommends:) must be satisfiable in main (i. e. the preferred alternative must be in main). If not, these dependencies need a separate MIR report (this can be a separate bug or another task on the main MIR bug) - TBD Standards compliance: The package should meet the FHS and Debian Policy standards. Major violations should be documented and justified. Also, the source packaging should be reasonably easy to understand and maintain. - There are efforts to make the packaging easier, but it's ongoing. Maintenance: The package must have an acceptable level of maintenance corresponding to its complexity: All packages must have a designated "owning" team, regardless of complexity, which is set as a package bug contact. - I think phablet-team owns this now. Simple packages (e.g. language bindings, simple Perl modules, small command-line programs, etc.) might not need very much maintenance effort, and if they are maintained well in Debian we can just keep them synced - N/A More complex packages will usually need a developer or team of developers paying attention to their bugs, whether that be in Ubuntu or elsewhere (often Debian). Packages that deliver major new headline features in Ubuntu need to have commitment from Ubuntu developers willing to spend substantial time on them. - Right now that's the bug reporter. Background information: The package descriptions should explain the general purpose and context of the package. Additional explanations/justifications should be done in the MIR report. If the package was renamed recently, or has a different upstream name, this needs to be explained in the MIR report. - https://developer.ubuntu.com/en/phone/platform/guides/push-notifications-client-guide/ Security checks Check how many vulnerabilities the package had in the past and how they were handled by upstream and the Debian/Ubuntu package: - Need to query either John Lenton or Samuele Pedronis. Check for security relevant binaries. If any are present, this requires a more in-depth security review. - u-p-c should go through in-depth security review. Executables which have the suid or sgid bit set. - Not sure, how do I know? Executables in /sbin, /usr/sbin. - N/A Packages which install services / daemons (/etc/init.d/*, /etc/init/*, /lib/systemd/system/*) - u-p-c runs as a service ** Affects: ubuntu-push (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1612638 Title: [MIR] ubuntu-push To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ubuntu-push/+bug/1612638/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
