Review for Source Package: resources [Summary] The essence of the review result from the MIR POV is that this resource-monitoring package conforms to the requirements of the MIR process for inclusion in main. The usefulness of the package was well described, the unit and functional testing of the package is sufficient, and all rust vendoring procedure is followed. Good security practice is followed given the scope of the package and the upstream appears to be in good health. MIR team ACK but please see the recommended TODOs below. This does not need a security review. List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: resources
Notes: Recommended TODOs: - The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted (the initial review recommended ~desktop-packages) - The review mentioned the retirement of legacy applications "System Monitor" and "Power Statistics.” Is the intention to demote these to Universe going forward or ship both with Resolute? [Rationale, Duplication and Ownership] As noted in the MIR, there are two packages that will be retired in place of this one: “System Monitor” and “Power Statistics.” These packages provide similar functionality to ‘resources’ but the rationale given for the differentiation is valid. Can the submitter please comment on the plans for how the existing packages will be retired in place of ‘resources?” A team is committed to own long term maintenance of this package - ~desktop-packages. The rationale given in the report seems valid and useful for Ubuntu. [Dependencies] OK: - no other runtime Dependencies to MIR due to this - no other build-time Dependencies with active code in the final binaries to MIR due to this - 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] - no embedded source present - no static linking - does not have unexpected Built-Using entries - not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard - vendoring is used, but the reasoning is sufficiently explained - Rust package that has all dependencies vendored. It does neither have *Built-Using (after build). Nor does the build log indicate built-in sources that are missed to be reported as Built-Using. - Includes vendored code, the package has documented how to refresh this code at debian/README.source 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 - only parses MessagePack from its own helper process. - does not expose any external endpoint (port/socket/... or similar) - 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, ...) - there exists a PolicyKit for resources-kill defined in net.Nokyan.Resources.polivy.in.in to elevate privileges to kill hung processes. 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. - the test suite for this package is superficial and tests whether the package installs correctly and can - This is a graphical application so it can't be automatically tested at build or autopkgtest time. But as outlined by the requester in [Quality assurance - testing] there: - is a manual test plan to assure quality: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DesktopTeam/TestPlans/Resources - This test plan has been reviewed by the MIR team and appears to sufficiently cover the use cases of this application. The test plan describes the actions a tester will run for each minor release or SRU. When combined with the superficial autopkgtest to ensure the package installs correctly, this acceptably demonstrates the functionality of the package. - This does not need special HW for build or test - no new python2 dependency Problems: None [Packaging red flags] OK: - Ubuntu does not carry a delta, aside from a rust vendoring patch. - symbols tracking not applicable for this kind of code. - debian/watch is not present but also not needed - this package contains a debian/upstream/metadata file which serves the functionality of a d/watch file. - Upstream update history is good - commits at least weekly - Debian/Ubuntu update history is good - very new package so minimal activity thus far - the current release is packaged - 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 (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 (minor UI bug currently open in Launchpad) - no dependency on webkit, qtwebkit or libseed - part of the UI, desktop file is ok - translation present in data/po files. 31 languages appear present. Problems: None ** Changed in: resources (Ubuntu) Assignee: Myles Penner (mylesjp) => (unassigned) ** Changed in: resources (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/2134467 Title: [MIR] resources To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/resources/+bug/2134467/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
