© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0e1f616
(Get the code!)
Review for Source Package: libmail-dmarc-perl
[Summary]
The review is based on the package provided by Miriam here:
https:/
MIR team ACK under the constraint to resolve the below listed
required TODOs and as much as possible having a look at the
recommended TODOs.
This does need a security review, so I'll assign ubuntu-security, after the
required TODOs are addressed.
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: libmail-dmarc-perl
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: <None>
Notes:
Required TODOs:
1. There 5 dependencies waiting to get in main, all of them have an ACK:
a. libemail-
b. libfile-
c. libclass-
d. libnet-ip-perl: https:/
e. libregexp-
2. Could you please clarify the status of the autopkgtest ?
Recommended TODOs:
3. It would be nice to have https:/
4. It would be nice to have https:/
[Rationale, Duplication and Ownership]
There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.
A 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 -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
- No dependencies in main that are only superficially tested requiring
more tests now.
Problems:
- other Dependencies to MIR due to this
[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 expose any external endpoint (port/socket/... or similar)
- 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)
- 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, ...)
Problems:
- does parse data formats (files [images, video, audio,
xml, json, asn.1], network packets, structures, ...) from
an untrusted source.
- does process arbitrary web content
- does not deal with cryptography (en-/decryption, certificates,
signing, ...)
[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.
- no new python2 dependency
Problems:
- does not have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
[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 good
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is good
- 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
- no use of setuid / setgid
- no dependency on webkit, qtwebkit, seed or libgoa-*
- not part of the UI for extra checks
- no translation present, but none needed for this case (user visible)?
Problems:
- one important open bug upstream https:/