[Bug 2089690] Re: [MIR] rust-sequoia-sq, rust-sequoia-sqv

[Julian Andres Klode]

Sorry I'll keep finishing the MIR template here there will be some more
description updates

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Foundations Bugs, which is a bug assignee.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2089690

Title:
  [MIR] rust-sequoia-sq, rust-sequoia-sqv

Status in gnupg2 package in Ubuntu:
  Incomplete
Status in rust-sequoia-chameleon-gnupg package in Ubuntu:
  Expired
Status in rust-sequoia-sq package in Ubuntu:
  Incomplete
Status in rust-sequoia-sqv package in Ubuntu:
  Incomplete

Bug description:
  [Availability]
  The packages rust-sequoia-sq and rust-sequoia-sqv are already in universe; they build for all architectures.

  Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rust-sequoia-sq
  Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rust-sequoia-sqv

  [Rationale]
  Sequoia is becoming the standard OpenPGP implementation in competing Linux distributions such as RHEL.

  - The package rust-sequoia-sq will generally be useful for a large part of
    our user base; users coming from RHEL 10 expect it to be there.
  - The package rust-sequoia-sqv is required in Ubuntu main for apt

  [Security]

  TODO-A: - Had #TBD security issues in the past
  TODO-A:   - TBD links to such security issues in trackers
  TODO-A:   - TBD to any context that shows how these issues got handled in
  TODO-A:     the past
  TODO-B: - 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

  TODO: - Security has been kept in mind and common isolation/risk-mitigation
  TODO:   patterns are in place utilizing the following features:
  TODO:   TBD (add details and links/examples about things like dropping
  TODO:   permissions, using temporary environments, restricted users/groups,
  TODO:   seccomp, systemd isolation features, apparmor, ...)
  - Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024).
  - Package does not expose any external endpoints

  [Quality assurance - function/usage]
  The package works well right after install

  [Quality assurance - maintenance]
  - The package rust-sequoia-sq 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/rust-sequoia-sq/+bug
    - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=rust-sequoia-sq
  - The package rust-sequoia-sqv 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/rust-sequoia-sqv/+bug
    - Debian https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=rust-sequoia-sqv
  - The package does not deal with exotic hardware we cannot support

  [Quality assurance - testing]
  - The package runs a test suite on build time, if it fails
    it makes the build fail, link to build log TBD

  TODO-B: - The package does not run an autopkgtest because TBD

  - The package does have not failing autopkgtests right now

  [Quality assurance - packaging]
  RULE: - The package uses a debian/watch file whenever possible. In cases where
  RULE:   this is not possible (e.g. native packages), the package should either
  RULE:   provide a debian/README.source file or a debian/watch file (with
  RULE:   comments only) providing clear instructions on how to generate the
  RULE:   source tar file.
  TODO-A: - debian/watch is present and works
  TODO-B: - debian/watch is not present, instead it has TBD
  TODO-C: - debian/watch is not present because it is a native package

  RULE: - The package should define the correct "Maintainer:" field in
  RULE:   debian/control. This needs to be updated, using `update-maintainer`
  RULE:   whenever any Ubuntu delta is applied to the package, as suggested by
  RULE:   dpkg (LP: #1951988)
  TODO: - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field

  RULE: - It is often useful to run `lintian --pedantic` on the package to spot
  RULE:   the most common packaging issues in advance
  RULE: - Non-obvious or non-properly commented lintian overrides should be
  RULE:   explained
  TODO: - This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors
  TODO: - Please link to a recent build log of the package <TBD>
  TODO: - Please attach the full output you have got from
  TODO:   `lintian --pedantic` as an extra post to this bug.
  TODO-A: - Lintian overrides are not present
  TODO-B: - Lintian overrides are present, but ok because TBD

  RULE: - The package should not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages.
  RULE:   That currently includes package dependencies on Python2 (without
  RULE:   providing Python3 packages), and packages depending on GTK2.
  TODO: - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages.
  TODO: - This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies

  RULE: - Debconf questions should not bother the default user too much
  TODO-A: - The package will be installed by default, but does not ask debconf
  TODO-A:   questions higher than medium
  TODO-B: - The package will not be installed by default

  RULE:  - The source packaging (in debian/) should be reasonably easy to
  RULE:   understand and maintain.
  TODO-A: - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules TBD
  TODO-B: - Packaging is complex, but that is ok because TBD

  [UI standards]
  TODO-A: - Application is not end-user facing (does not need translation)
  TODO-B: - Application is end-user facing, Translation is present, via standard
  TODO-B:   intltool/gettext or similar build and runtime internationalization
  TODO-B:   system see TBD

  TODO-A: - End-user applications that ships a standard conformant desktop file,
  TODO-A:   see TBD
  TODO-B: - End-user applications without desktop file, not needed because TBD

  [Dependencies]
  RULE: - In case of alternative the preferred alternative must be in main.
  RULE: - Build(-only) dependencies can be in universe
  RULE: - If there are further dependencies they need a separate MIR discussion
  RULE:   (this can be a separate bug or another task on the main MIR bug)
  TODO-A: - No further depends or recommends dependencies that are not yet in main
  TODO-B: - There are further dependencies that are not yet in main, MIR for them
  TODO-B:   is at TBD
  TODO-C: - There are further dependencies that are not yet in main, the MIR
  TODO-C:   process for them is handled as part of this bug here.

  [Standards compliance]
  RULE: - Major violations should be documented and justified.
  RULE:   - FHS: https://refspecs.linuxfoundation.org/fhs.shtml
  RULE:   - Debian Policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/
  TODO-A: - This package correctly follows FHS and Debian Policy
  TODO-B: - This package violates FHS or Debian Policy, reasons for that are TBD

  [Maintenance/Owner]
  RULE: The package must have an acceptable level of maintenance corresponding
  RULE: to its complexity:
  RULE: - All packages must have a designated "owning" team, regardless of
  RULE:   complexity.
  RULE:   This requirement of an owning-team comes in two aspects:
  RULE:   - A case needs to have a team essentially saying "yes we will own that"
  RULE:     to enter the MIR process. Usually that is implied by team members
  RULE:     filing MIR requests having the backup by their management for the
  RULE:     long term commitment this implies.
  RULE:     - A community driven MIR request might be filed to show the use case,
  RULE:       but then, as a first step, needs to get a team agreeing to own
  RULE:       it before the case can be processed further.
  RULE:       If unsure which teams to consider have a look at the current mapping
  RULE:       http://reqorts.qa.ubuntu.com/reports/m-r-package-team-mapping.html
  RULE:       In that case (you are not a representative of the team who will
  RULE:       gain the long term committment to this) please ask a representative
  RULE:       of that team to comment on the bug acknowledging that they are ok to
  RULE:       own it.
  RULE:   - The package needs a bug subscriber before it can be promoted to main.
  RULE:     Strictly speaking that subscription can therefore wait until the
  RULE:     moment of the actual promotion by an archive admin. But it is
  RULE:     strongly recommended to subscribe early, as the owning team will get
  RULE      a preview of the to-be-expected incoming bugs later on.
  RULE: - Simple packages (e.g. language bindings, simple Perl modules, small
  RULE:   command-line programs, etc.) might not need very much maintenance
  RULE:   effort, and if they are maintained well in Debian we can just keep them
  RULE:   synced. They still need a subscribing team to handle bugs, FTBFS and
  RULE:   tests
  RULE: - More complex packages will usually need a developer or team of
  RULE:   developers paying attention to their bugs, whether that be in Ubuntu
  RULE:   or elsewhere (often Debian). Packages that deliver major new headline
  RULE:   features in Ubuntu need to have commitment from Ubuntu developers
  RULE:   willing to spend substantial time on them.
  TODO-A: - The owning team will be TBD and I have their acknowledgement for
  TODO-A:   that commitment
  TODO-B: - I Suggest the owning team to be TBD
  TODO-A: - The future owning team is already subscribed to the package
  TODO-B: - The future owning team is not yet subscribed, but will subscribe to
  TODO-B:   the package before promotion

  RULE: - Responsibilities implied by static builds promoted to main, which is
  RULE:   not a recommended but a common case with golang and rust packages.
  RULE:   - the security team will track CVEs for all vendored/embedded sources in main
  RULE:   - the security team will provide updates to main for all `golang-*-dev`
  RULE:     packages
  RULE:   - the security team will provide updates to main for non-vendored
  RULE:     dependencies as per normal procedures (including e.g.,
  RULE:     sponsoring/coordinating uploads from teams/upstream projects, etc)
  RULE:   - the security team will perform no-change-rebuilds for all packages
  RULE:     listing an CVE-fixed package as Built-Using and coordinate testing
  RULE:     with the owning teams responsible for the rebuilt packages
  RULE:   - for packages that build using any `golang-*-dev` packages:
  RULE:     - the owning team must state their commitment to test
  RULE:       no-change-rebuilds triggered by a dependent library/compiler and to
  RULE:       fix any issues found for the lifetime of the release (including ESM
  RULE:       when included)
  RULE:     - the owning team must provide timely testing of no-change-rebuilds
  RULE:       from the security team, fixing the rebuilt package as necessary
  RULE:   - for packages that build with approved vendored code:
  RULE:     - the owning team must state their commitment to provide updates to
  RULE:       the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime of
  RULE:       the release (including ESM when included)
  RULE:     - the security team will alert the owning team of issues that may
  RULE:       affect their vendored code
  RULE:     - the owning team will provide timely, high quality updates for the
  RULE:       security team to sponsor to fix issues in the affected vendored code
  RULE:     - the owning team will use a minimal set of vendored code (e.g., Rust
  RULE:       packages are unlikely to need `*_win` crates to build)
  RULE:     - if subsequent uploads add new vendored components or dependencies
  RULE:       these have to be reviewed and agreed by the security team.
  RULE:     - Such updates in the project might be trivial, but imply that a
  RULE:       dependency for e.g. a CVE fix will be moved to a new major version.
  RULE:       Being vendored that does gladly at least not imply incompatibility
  RULE:       issues with other packages or the SRU policy. But it might happen
  RULE:       that this triggers either:
  RULE:       a) The need to adapt the current version of the main package and/or
  RULE:          other vendored dependencies to work with the new dependency
  RULE:       b) The need to backport the fix in the dependency as the main
  RULE:          package will functionally only work well with the older version
  RULE:       c) The need to backport the fix in the dependency, as it would imply
  RULE:          requiring a newer toolchain to be buildable that isn't available
  RULE:          in the target release.
  RULE: - The rust ecosystem currently isn't yet considered stable enough for
  RULE:   classic lib dependencies and transitions in main; therefore the
  RULE:   expectation for those packages is to vendor (and own/test) all
  RULE:   dependencies (except those provided by the rust runtime itself).
  RULE:   This implies that all the rules for vendored builds always
  RULE:   apply to them. In addition:
  RULE:   - The rules and checks for rust based packages are preliminary and might
  RULE:     change over time as the ecosystem matures and while
  RULE:     processing the first few rust based packages.
  RULE:   - It is expected rust builds will use dh-cargo so that a later switch
  RULE:     to non vendored dependencies isn't too complex (e.g. it is likely
  RULE:     that over time more common libs shall become stable and then archive
  RULE:     packages will be used to build).
  RULE:   - The tooling to get a Cargo.lock that will include internal vendored
  RULE:     dependencies is described at:
  RULE:     https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/blob/main/vendoring/Rust.md
  RULE:   - An example of how Rust dependency vendoring can be automated is
  RULE:     "s390-tools", isolating crates in a .orig-vendor.tar.xz tarball:
  RULE:     * https://git.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/s390-tools/tree/debian/rules
  RULE:     Other examples include "authd" (for a native package, combined with
  RULE:     Golang vendoring) and "gnome-snapshot" (using debian/missing-sources):
  RULE:     * authd:
  RULE:       https://github.com/ubuntu/authd/blob/main/debian/rules
  RULE:     * gnome-snapshot:
  RULE:       https://salsa.debian.org/ubuntu-dev-team/snapshot/-/blob/ubuntu/latest/debian/README.source

  RULE: - All vendored dependencies (no matter what language) shall have a
  RULE:   way to be refreshed
  TODO-A: - This does not use static builds
  TODO-B: - The team TBD is aware of the implications by a static build and
  TODO-B:   commits to test no-change-rebuilds and to fix any issues found for the
  TODO-B:   lifetime of the release (including ESM)

  TODO-A: - This does not use vendored code
  TODO-B: - The team TBD is aware of the implications of vendored code and (as
  TODO-B:   alerted by the security team) commits to provide updates and backports
  TODO-B:   to the security team for any affected vendored code for the lifetime
  TODO-B:   of the release (including ESM).

  TODO-A: - This does not use vendored code
  TODO-B: - This package uses vendored go code tracked in go.sum as shipped in the
  TODO-B:   package, refreshing that code is outlined in debian/README.source
  TODO-C: - This package uses vendored rust code tracked in Cargo.lock as shipped,
  TODO-C:   in the package (at /usr/share/doc/<pkgname>/Cargo.lock - might be
  TODO-C:   compressed), refreshing that code is outlined in debian/README.source
  TODO-D: - This package uses vendored code, refreshing that code is outlined
  TODO-D:   in debian/README.source

  TODO-A: - This package is not rust based
  TODO-B: - This package is rust based and vendors all non language-runtime
  TODO-B:   dependencies

  RULE: - Some packages build and update often, in this case everyone can just
  RULE:   check the recent build logs to ensure if it builds fine.
  RULE:   But some other packages are rather stable and have not been rebuilt
  RULE:   in a long time. There no one can be confident it would build on e.g.
  RULE:   an urgent security fix. Hence we ask if there has been a recent build.
  RULE:   That might be a recent build that has been done anyway as seen on
  RULE:   https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/<source>, a reference to a recent
  RULE:   archive test rebuild (those are announced on the ubuntu-devel mailing
  RULE:   list like https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-announce/2024-January/001342.html),
  RULE:   or a build set up by the reporter in a PPA with all architectures
  RULE:   enabled.
  TODO-A: - The package has been built within the last 3 months in the archive
  TODO-B: - The package has been built within the last 3 months as part
  TODO-B:   of a test rebuild
  TODO-C: - The package has been built within the last 3 months in PPA
  TODO-D: - The package has been built within the last 3 months in sbuild as it
  TODO-D:   can not be uploaded yet
  RULE: - To make it easier for everyone, please provide a link to that build so
  RULE:   everyone can follow up easily e.g. checking the various architectures.
  RULE:   Example https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/qemu/1:8.2.2+ds-0ubuntu1
  TODO: - Build link on launchpad: TBD

  [Background information]
  Sequo

  RULE: - The package descriptions should explain the general purpose and context
  RULE:   of the package. Additional explanations/justifications should be done in
  RULE:   the MIR report.
  RULE: - If the package was renamed recently, or has a different upstream name,
  RULE:   this needs to be explained in the MIR report.
  TODO: The Package description explains the package well
  TODO: Upstream Name is TBD
  TODO: Link to upstream project TBD
  TODO: TBD (any further background that might be helpful

  Foundations should probably make a case for replacing GnuPG with
  Sequoia in "main", filing corresponding MIRs for the needed sequoia
  components.

  MIR team usually likes to see some kind of transition plan, how to get
  rid of the older alternative (GPG) when a new one is introduced. Or
  technical solutions, such as a package split to ship only binary
  packages in main that are non-duplicates, even though the source
  package of two components might have some overlap.

  See https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-
  mir/blob/main/vendoring/Rust.md for vendoring Rust dependencies.

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnupg2/+bug/2089690/+subscriptions