[needs-packaging] optee-client-s32

[Laider Lai]

[needs-packaging] optee-client-s32 (3.18.0-0ubuntu1)
For Erlangen project, we have to provide the NXP S32G optee-client-s32 to the customer via Ubuntu archive (universe).

URL: https://launchpad.net/~nemos-team/+archive/ubuntu/archive-target/+packages
Source code: https://code.launchpad.net/~nemos-team/nemos/+git/optee-client-s32/+ref/ubuntu/archive
License: https://git.launchpad.net/~nemos-team/nemos/+git/optee-client-s32/tree/debian/copyright
Notes: The NXP S32G optee-client-s32 [Noble]

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

*** This is an automated message ***

This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist.

[Simon Quigley (tsimonq2)]

Uploaded, thank you!

[Laider Lai (laiderlai)]

*Since the development series is moved to Noble. Update the description target to Noble.

Hi Simon (tsimonq2),
Thanks for your sponsor, could you help to share where the package is uploaded from comment#2?

Tks.

[Laider Lai (laiderlai)]

There is a rejected comment:
incorrect version number for an Ubuntu-only upload. asserts individual copyright where Canonical copyright applies. debian/copyright license declarations do not match upstream.

1. The version format is refined as 3.18.0-0ubuntu6.
2. The upstream name of d/copyright is fixed
3. Some copyright different parts are debian/* as expected. Because there are some changes for NXP S32G platforms. That is why the package has a postfix '-s32'. It means this package is only for NXP S32G platforms.

Hi Dave Jones,
Could you help sponsor this package to noble upload queue again? Tks.

[Sergio Durigan Junior (sergiodj)]

Hello Laider,

I looked at the package and I have a few comments. These should be addressed before it's uploaded again.

1) There are some files which are licensed under BSD-3-Clause, not BSD-2-Clause. For that reason, you will need to explicitly mention them in debian/copyright.

2) When the archive admin said "asserts individual copyright where Canonical copyright applies", they actually meant that you're listing "2022 Isaac True <email address hidden>" as the copyright owner of the files under debian/*. However, because this work was done on behalf of Canonical, it is the company that should be listed as the copyright owner.

3) The debian/copyright file must contain the copyright information related to everything that is part of the orig tarball. It doesn't really matter if some of the files are not used to generate the binary packages that will be distributed; as long as the file is part of the source package, its copyright information needs to be listed.

4) As for the version chosen, it is my understanding that the package is not part of any Ubuntu release so far, right? If that's indeed the case, then you don't need to bump the package version on d/changelog. Instead, just use the "-0ubuntu1" prefix until the package gets uploaded. This is because we should not list unreleased versions on d/copyright.

I hope this provides you with the necessary information to move forward with this request. I'm going to unsubscribe ubuntu-sponsors from this bug for now; please resubscribe it once you address the points above.

Thanks.

[Laider Lai (laiderlai)]

Hello Sergio,

Thanks for your comments.
The d/copyright is updated and the package version is refined to 3.18.0-0ubuntu1 in PPA.

Resubscribe the sponsor team again for reviewing. Tks.

[Dave Jones (waveform)]

Ran the package through licensecheck and I think there's a missing BSD-3-Clause entry required in d/copyright. Specifically,

Files:
 tee-supplicant/src/hmac_sha2.c
 tee-supplicant/src/hmac_sha2.h
 tee-supplicant/src/sha2.c
 tee-supplicant/src/sha2.h
Copyright:
  2005, 2007, Olivier Gay <email address hidden>
  2005, Olivier Gay <email address hidden>
  2016, Linaro Limited
License: BSD-3-Clause

Other than that though, things are looking good so I've taken the liberty of sponsoring the package with this change, and a couple of others. Specifically:

* Removed ~ppa1 from the version number

* Added a ref to this bug in the changelog

* Trimmed the changelog down to "Initial release to Ubuntu" because all the other entries were just packaging corrections

I don't *think* a feature-freeze exception is required for this, despite noble being in freeze now, since it's a new package, but I know there are other packages you're waiting on and if there are dependencies on this one it may require an over-arching FFe showing how all this is in aid of hardware enablement of specific boards (I'm sure the archive-admins will correct me if my assumption is wrong here!).

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FreezeExceptionProcess has more information on the FFe process, but for now I'll sponsor with the above changes.