canonical-ubuntu-qa team mailing list archive

[Ioanna Alifieraki <2076381@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Review for Source Package: retry

[Summary]
Retry is a fairly small and simple package and in very good shape.
Minor problem the lack of tests during runtime.
However, since there are no tests upstream and currently retry blocks
autopkgtest, I'd suggest to have it as a recommended TODO and not block
this MIR.
The package is very small and has autopackage tests.
The same tests used in autopackage could be used at build time.


MIR team ACK
This does not need a security review
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: retry
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: None

Recommended TODOs:
1. Add tests during build. This would be nice to go upstream first.

- The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted

[Rationale, Duplication and Ownership]
There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.
Foundatinos team (Ubuntu Release Managemnent Team) is committed to own long term maintenance of this package.
The rationale given in the report seems valid and useful for Ubuntu.


[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
  - retry 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
- not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
- 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.
- 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, ...)

Problems: None

[Common blockers]
OK:
- does not FTBFS currently
- 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:
- does not have a test suite that runs at build time

[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does not carry a delta
- 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
- Debian/Ubuntu update history follows upstream
- 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 (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 / 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 (user visible)?

Problems: None

** Changed in: retry (Ubuntu)
       Status: New => In Progress

** Changed in: retry (Ubuntu)
     Assignee: Ioanna Alifieraki (joalif) => (unassigned)

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of
Canonical's Ubuntu QA, which is subscribed to the bug report.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2076381

Title:
  [MIR] retry

Status in retry package in Ubuntu:
  In Progress

Bug description:
  [Availability]
  The package `retry` is already in Ubuntu universe.
  The package `retry` build for the architectures it is designed to work on.
  It currently builds and works for architectures: any
  Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/retry

  [Rationale]
  This package is required in ubuntu/main as it is a dependency for `autopkgtest`, which is already in main (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/autopkgtest).
  Also, this package only consist of a single binary produced from less than 700 lines of quite clear modern C, including error handling and built-in usage (--help).
  It basically eases creating retry loop in scripts, with non trivial features such as variable delay between retries, and stdout/stderr handling.

  [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).
  - Package does not expose any external endpoints
  - 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/Upstream and does
    not have too many, long-term & critical, open bugs
    - Ubuntu https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/retry/+bug
    - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=retry
    - Upstream's bug tracker, e.g., GitHub Issues: https://github.com/minfrin/retry/issues
  - 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 there is no test suite
    in the upstream repository.
  - The package runs a non-trivial autopkgtest, and is currently passing on
    all architectures, link to test logs: https://autopkgtest.ubuntu.com/packages/retry
  - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now

  [Quality assurance - packaging]
  - debian/watch is present and works
  - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field
  - This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors
  - https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=retry&arch=arm64&ver=1.0.5-3&stamp=1674427627&raw=1
  - `lintian --pedantic` doesn't yield anything
  - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages.
  - The package will not be installed by default
  - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules: https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/retry/tree/debian/rules?h=applied/1.0.5-3&id=30ac5a739df4896a8094615af83ecb9962806f9e

  [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]
  - I suggest the owning team to be Foundations, more specifically Ubuntu Release Management Team, and as part of that team, I certify that we agree to maintain the package
  - This does not use static builds
  - This does not use vendored code
  - This package is not rust based
  - The package has been built within the last 3 months in PPA
  - Build link on launchpad: https://launchpad.net/~hyask/+archive/ubuntu/tests/+build/28725690

  [Background information]
  The Package description explains the package well.
  Upstream Name is `retry`
  Link to upstream project: https://github.com/minfrin/retry

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/retry/+bug/2076381/+subscriptions