[needs-packaging] lenovo-wwan-unlock

[Dirk Su]

[Availability]
The package lenovo-wwan-unlock build for the architectures it is designed to work on.
It currently builds and works for architectures: amd64
Link to package https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lenovo-wwan-unlock

[Rationale]
 - The package lenovo-wwan-unlock is required in Ubuntu multiverse for WWAN hardware support
 - The package lenovo-wwan-unlock will generally be useful for a large part of
   our user base
 - There is no other/better way to solve this that is already in main or
   should go universe->main instead of this.
 - It would be great and useful to community/processes to have the
   package lenovo-fccunlock and lenovo-cfgservice in Ubuntu restricted, but there is no definitive deadline.

[Security]
 - No CVEs/security issues in this software in the past
 - no `suid` or `sgid` binaries
 - Binary configservice_lenovo and DPR_Fcc_unlock_service in /opt/fcc_lenovo/ is no problem because AppArmor constraints applied
 - Package does install services, timers or recurring jobs
   lenovo-fccunlock.service
   lenovo-cfgservice.service
 - Security has been kept in mind and common isolation/risk-mitigation
   patterns are in place utilizing the following features:
   AppArmor constraints had been included:
   - opt.fcc_lenovo.DPR_Fcc_unlock_service
   - opt.fcc_lenovo.configservice_lenovo
- Packages does not open privileged ports (ports < 1024).
- Packages does not expose any external endpoints
- Packages does not contain extensions to security-sensitive software
   (filters, scanners, plugins, UI skins, ...)

[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
   - https://github.com/lenovo/lenovo-wwan-unlock/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 it contains only binary files

 - The package can not be well tested at build or autopkgtest time
   because it will need real hardware for testing. To make up for that:
   - We have access to such hardware in the team
 - Based on that access outlined above, here are the details of the
   test plan
      execute service by systemd command
   sudo systemctl start lenovo-fccunlock
   sudo systemctl start lenovo-cfgservice
   and (if already possible) example output of a test run:
     - output of lenovo-fccunlock: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/nsFBW3jXDk/
  - output ot lenovo-cfgservice: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/8rCFqRHQ8V/
   We will execute that test plan
   on-uploads

[Quality assurance - packaging]
 - debian/watch is not present because it is a native package and need to add
   AppArmor configs
 - debian/control defines a correct Maintainer field

 - This package does not yield massive lintian Warnings, Errors
 - Please link to a recent build log of the package
   https://launchpadlibrarian.net/719472309/buildlog_ubuntu-noble-amd64.lenovo-wwan-unlock_1.2ubuntu3-0~202403150905~ubuntu24.04.1_BUILDING.txt.gz
 - Please attach the full output you have got from
   `lintian --pedantic` log: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/Mm6CX7QgFc/
 - Lintian overrides are not present

 - This package does not rely on obsolete or about to be demoted packages.
 - This package has no python2 or GTK2 dependencies
 - The package will not be installed by default

 - Packaging and build is easy, link to debian/rules
   https://git.launchpad.net/lenovo-wwan-unlock/tree/debian/control

[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]
 - The owning team will be canonical-mainstream and I have their acknowledgement for
   that commitment
 - The future owning team is already subscribed to the package

 - This does not use static builds
 - This does not use vendored code
 - This package is not rust based

- The package was test rebuilt in PPA or sbuild recently
  PPA: https://launchpad.net/~dirksu/+archive/ubuntu/fccunlock-test

[Background information]
 The Package description explains the package well
 Upstream Name is lenovo-wwan-unlock
 Link to upstream project https://github.com/lenovo/lenovo-wwan-unlock

[Lucas Kanashiro (lucaskanashiro)]

Hi Dirk Su,

If I understood correctly, what you want here is someone to sponsor the upload of lenovo-wwan-unlock, and this is the git repo with the source package:

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lenovo-wwan-unlock

Did I get it right?

You added the MIR bug description template here and it seems a bit confusing.

[Dirk Su (dirksu)]

Hi Lucas Kanashiro,

The source git repo is at https://git.launchpad.net/lenovo-wwan-unlock.
This package been requested to go through normal review & sponsorship into multiverse. Will you suggest to use different template in the description.

[Lucas Kanashiro (lucaskanashiro)]

Hi Dirk Su,

I cloned the git repo and for instance the debian/changelog is confusing, there are many entries which makes me think that this package is already maintained somewhere else, is this maintained in a PPA and now you are trying to put it in the Ubuntu archive? When the package is landing for the first time in the Ubuntu archive we usually have just a single changelog entry.

The version string you are using does not seem correct. Right now, I see version 1.2ubuntu3. This version string could be used for a native package (something Ubuntu specific), but I see this a project from Lenovo and it is maintained here:

https://github.com/lenovo/lenovo-wwan-unlock

I'd expect a version similar to 2.0.0-0ubuntu1 (version 2.0.0 was releases 2 weeks ago in the repo above). So before the '-' we have the upstream version. And after that, we have the Debian revision, since this package is not in Debian, just in Ubuntu, we use '0ubuntu1'.

I did not read the proprietary license of this software, but in debian/copyright you are using the GPL-3 license for the debian directory. Could you make sure this is OK?

I am also unsure how to generate the tarball for this version, due to that I was not able to build the package and run lintian for instance. However, I think you already have something to work on. I am unsubscribing ~ubuntu-sponsors for now. Once you address the issues presented above subscribe ~ubuntu-sponsors again.

[Dirk Su (dirksu)]

Hi,

I packed version v2.0.0 and upload to the git repo. The files under debian folder are all created by Canonical, I think it should be no problem using GPL-3 license.