• Re: GStreamer 1.22.12 stable release update

    From Adam D. Barratt@21:1/5 to Marc Leeman on Tue Jan 7 11:00:01 2025
    On Tue, 2025-01-07 at 10:35 +0100, Marc Leeman wrote:
    I'm part of the team that releases the Debian packages of GStreamer
    into Debian. Sebastian had a discussion about a number of stability
    and security issues in the GStreamer 1.22.0 version that is currently
    in stable.

    The agreement with Salvatore was to upload the latest oldstable
    release (1.22.12 at the time of writing) to address many of these.

    At the moment, all the packages have been prepared in the respective
    salsa repositories [1] in the branches `pristine-tar`,
    `debian/bookworm` and `upstream-bookworrm [2].

    I am new to the process of uploading new stable releases, so looking
    into [3], the packages have the version `1.22.12-0+deb12u1` and
    `bookworm` in the changelog

    I'm afraid I'm a little confused here.

    Salvatore is a member of the Security Team, not the Release Team. The
    Security Team are obviously free to agree to whatever updates they feel
    are appropriate via the security archive, but if you want to update
    packages in stable you need to agree that with the Release Team. So far
    as I'm aware, this is the first time the suggestion has been raised
    with us.

    As you referenced the relevant section of DevRef, if the request here
    is to update the packages via p-u then please file one release.d.o bug
    per source package including all the requested information.

    Regards,

    Adam

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Salvatore Bonaccorso@21:1/5 to Adam D. Barratt on Tue Jan 7 19:50:01 2025
    Hi Adam, hi Marc,

    Let me try to explain the goal here as it it might get the impression
    Adam got confused on seeing this request for the first time.

    On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 09:58:16AM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
    On Tue, 2025-01-07 at 10:35 +0100, Marc Leeman wrote:
    I'm part of the team that releases the Debian packages of GStreamer
    into Debian. Sebastian had a discussion about a number of stability
    and security issues in the GStreamer 1.22.0 version that is currently
    in stable.

    The agreement with Salvatore was to upload the latest oldstable
    release (1.22.12 at the time of writing) to address many of these.

    At the moment, all the packages have been prepared in the respective
    salsa repositories [1] in the branches `pristine-tar`,
    `debian/bookworm` and `upstream-bookworrm [2].

    I am new to the process of uploading new stable releases, so looking
    into [3], the packages have the version `1.22.12-0+deb12u1` and
    `bookworm` in the changelog

    I'm afraid I'm a little confused here.

    Salvatore is a member of the Security Team, not the Release Team. The Security Team are obviously free to agree to whatever updates they feel
    are appropriate via the security archive, but if you want to update
    packages in stable you need to agree that with the Release Team. So far
    as I'm aware, this is the first time the suggestion has been raised
    with us.

    As you referenced the relevant section of DevRef, if the request here
    is to update the packages via p-u then please file one release.d.o bug
    per source package including all the requested information.

    Let me explain a bit how we come here with a request from Marc. While
    we were preparing the DSAs for gst-plugins-base1.0 (DSA-5831-1),
    gstreamer1.0 (DSA-5832-1) and gst-plugins-good1.0 (DSA-5838-1), the
    last one with a relative big set of commits to address the CVEs, I got
    in contact with Sebastian, who is both involved in Debian maintenance
    but more importantly for this case as well upstream. He pointed out to
    us that the 1.22.x series are actually intended to carry those CVE
    fixes *and* important bugfixes. The prepared uploads were still good
    enough and important to get out that we opted to not respin all but in
    that discussion we agreed that it might be a good idea to approach
    you, release team and stable release managers to consider doing rbases
    to those stable versions for the 1.22.y series in a point release.

    Sebastian approached Marc if he is interested to prepare this work.

    So this mail serves as proposal for doing so in one of the next point
    releases (the next one is too late). We (with my security team hat on)
    would strongly support taht we se switch to those following the 1.22.y
    branch for the point releases and for upcoming Gstreamer related
    security fixes.

    In fact the DSA-5838-1 had one backported patch which on top of the
    source is correct, but if we would have rebased the version in 1.22.y
    we would have fixed as well an bug (not a regression!) in the av1
    parser. Notably the version in bookworm misses https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/gstreamer/gstreamer/-/commit/6d2bc8b8cd6ca8d5ea0f82145a6d52235fdcd631
    (again we do not regress here as the issue was present before, but it
    ould have been a nice side effect to fix it as well).

    Adam does that gives you enough background information on this
    request? It was not meant as: hey the security team say we can rebase,
    and "bypass" the repsonability of the release team.

    Let know please if you need any further information from Marc or
    Sebastian on specific 1.22.y questions.

    Regards,
    Salvatore

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adam D. Barratt@21:1/5 to Salvatore Bonaccorso on Tue Jan 7 20:30:02 2025
    On Tue, 2025-01-07 at 19:47 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
    So this mail serves as proposal for doing so in one of the next point releases (the next one is too late). We (with my security team hat
    on) would strongly support taht we se switch to those following the
    1.22.y branch for the point releases and for upcoming Gstreamer
    related security fixes.
    [...]
    Adam does that gives you enough background information on this
    request? It was not meant as: hey the security team say we can
    rebase, and "bypass" the repsonability of the release team.

    Let know please if you need any further information from Marc or
    Sebastian on specific 1.22.y questions.

    Yes, thanks, and apologies for the knee-jerk reaction to Marc's mail.

    In principle the idea sounds good, but particularly to begin with we'd
    need to see specifics of the updates. The way that works best for us
    for doing that is p-u bugs, as that's the standard workflow we use for
    updates via p-u.

    Regards,

    Adam

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Salvatore Bonaccorso@21:1/5 to Adam D. Barratt on Sat Jan 11 11:50:01 2025
    Hi Marc,

    On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 07:26:31PM +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
    On Tue, 2025-01-07 at 19:47 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
    So this mail serves as proposal for doing so in one of the next point releases (the next one is too late). We (with my security team hat
    on) would strongly support taht we se switch to those following the
    1.22.y branch for the point releases and for upcoming Gstreamer
    related security fixes.
    [...]
    Adam does that gives you enough background information on this
    request? It was not meant as: hey the security team say we can
    rebase, and "bypass" the repsonability of the release team.

    Let know please if you need any further information from Marc or
    Sebastian on specific 1.22.y questions.

    Yes, thanks, and apologies for the knee-jerk reaction to Marc's mail.

    In principle the idea sounds good, but particularly to begin with we'd
    need to see specifics of the updates. The way that works best for us
    for doing that is p-u bugs, as that's the standard workflow we use for updates via p-u.

    I hope you got not 'scarried away' :). Since this is involving new
    upstream version inmports/rebases it might be worth of pointing out
    that you could filter out the debdiff changes with focusing on the
    impact for Debian, so including debian/ changes but filtering e.g. out autocreated stuff from source.

    Does this helps?

    Regards,
    Salvatore

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)