Ubuntu
python-django package

SRU update Trusty to Python Django 1.6.11

Bug #1644346 reported by Scott Kitterman
10
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
python-django (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Medium
Unassigned
Trusty
Fix Released
Medium
Unassigned

Bug Description

[Impact]

 * Between Django 1.6.1 and 1.6.11 upstream did considerable non-security bug fixing that it would be good to be able to take advantage of. Since 1.6.11 is the terminal upstream release in the 1.6 branch, this is one time request.

 * Many projects are not ready to move to a newer Django version (as some porting is required) and will remain on Trusty for some time to come. We should provide users with the best package we can.

[Test Case]

 * Upstream provides an extensive test suite (in fact many additional tests are provided in 1.6.11 over what 1.6.1 shipped) that is run during package build [1]. If any tests fail, the package build will fail. Execution of the test suite should be considered an adequate test.

 * If the package built, the test is complete.

[Regression Potential]

 * Regression potential is low. Upstream is focused on limiting changes in the release branch to needed bug fixes and when regressions were identified during 1.6 maintenance, new releases were produced to repair the regression. Upstream has a similar guidelines to those used by Ubuntu SRU for maintenance upates [2].

 * I'm involved in a project that had been running the trusty-security version of python-django 1.6.1 and upgraded to this proposed package without issue. We've been running it in production for several weeks with no issue noted.

 * Despite the test suite coverage, this is a complex package so the SRU is not risk free, but the combination of the build time tests and our experience with the package in production lead me to think issues are unlikely. Additionally, I did some Googling and it did not appear to be aware of regression issues that were unresolved (and this is an old enough release, I think I'd have found it if it were an issue).

[Other Info]

 * The diff is large. Much of the diff is conversion of Ubuntu security patches to upstream source for issues that were fixed in 1.6.2 - 1.6.11. I have reviewed the entire diff and don't see any new features.

[1] https://launchpadlibrarian.net/291497846/buildlog_ubuntu-trusty-i386.python-django_1.6.1-2ubuntu0.16_BUILDING.txt.gz
[2] https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/internals/release-process/

Scott Kitterman (kitterman)
Changed in python-django (Ubuntu):
status: New → In Progress
importance: Undecided → Medium
Changed in python-django (Ubuntu Trusty):
importance: Undecided → Medium
status: New → In Progress
Revision history for this message
Robie Basak (racb) wrote :

Hi Scott,

This looks good to me, although I did notice three changes that I'd expect to be documented in debian/changelog:

debian/patches/CVE-2015-5144.patch is updated in a way that looks reasonable.

debian/patches/CVE-2015-596x.patch has a change that seems a little gratuitous. Was this intentional, and/or am I mistaken?

debian/patches/file-encoding.diff is updated in a way that looks reasonable.

Did you intend to update these, or did the updates come from somewhere else?

Do you have an opinion on quilt refreshes? These seem a little gratuitous too, adding a bunch of noise that makes it harder to spot real changes. https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt recommends "-p ab --no-timestamps --no-index" and I prefer to see only quilt refreshes where they are needed to reduce review diff noise.

I appreciate that you've been doing this kind of thing far longer than I have, so if it is all intentional, then +1 to accept to Trusty - just let me know.

Thanks!

Changed in python-django (Ubuntu):
status: In Progress → Invalid
Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote : Re: [Bug 1644346] Re: SRU update Trusty to Python Django 1.6.11

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 06:12:30 PM you wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> This looks good to me, although I did notice three changes that I'd
> expect to be documented in debian/changelog:
>
> debian/patches/CVE-2015-5144.patch is updated in a way that looks
> reasonable.
>
> debian/patches/CVE-2015-596x.patch has a change that seems a little
> gratuitous. Was this intentional, and/or am I mistaken?
>
> debian/patches/file-encoding.diff is updated in a way that looks
> reasonable.

These are a result of upstream changes in the area around where the patch
touched. As an example, in the 596x.patch, this hunk (and the one after):

+@@ -225,12 +225,18 @@

- .. method:: flush
+ .. method:: flush()

 - Delete the current session data from the session and regenerate the
 - session key value that is sent back to the user in the cookie. This is

comes from upstream commit 6bf05c0267b388bdf6f2bda6f1915c1ac8a02b35 that was
included in django 1.6.2. These aren't separately documented because they are
part of the upstream update, which is.

> Did you intend to update these, or did the updates come from somewhere
> else?

Everything that's in here is based on either the upstream changes 1.6.2 -
1.6.11 or the Ubuntu security patches. I actively avoided using any
imagination on this.

> Do you have an opinion on quilt refreshes? These seem a little
> gratuitous too, adding a bunch of noise that makes it harder to spot
> real changes. https://wiki.debian.org/UsingQuilt recommends "-p ab --no-
> timestamps --no-index" and I prefer to see only quilt refreshes where
> they are needed to reduce review diff noise.

Since, given Django's history, we are virtually certain to have more security
updates in the future, I considered it better to refresh everything once and
have it apply cleanly now. While, as you say, it does increase the review
this time, it will make it easier and lower risk in the future.

Maybe I've just read enough of these, but skipping over the noise is something
I tend to just do and it hadn't occurred to me to do anything other than
quilt's default. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

> I appreciate that you've been doing this kind of thing far longer than I
> have, so if it is all intentional, then +1 to accept to Trusty - just
> let me know.

Thanks. I think it'll be good to get this in.

Scott K

Revision history for this message
Robie Basak (racb) wrote : Please test proposed package

Hello Scott, or anyone else affected,

Accepted python-django into trusty-proposed. The package will build now and be available at https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/python-django/1.6.11-0ubuntu1 in a few hours, and then in the -proposed repository.

Please help us by testing this new package. See https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Testing/EnableProposed for documentation on how to enable and use -proposed.Your feedback will aid us getting this update out to other Ubuntu users.

If this package fixes the bug for you, please add a comment to this bug, mentioning the version of the package you tested, and change the tag from verification-needed to verification-done. If it does not fix the bug for you, please add a comment stating that, and change the tag to verification-failed. In either case, details of your testing will help us make a better decision.

Further information regarding the verification process can be found at https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/PerformingSRUVerification . Thank you in advance!

Changed in python-django (Ubuntu Trusty):
status: In Progress → Fix Committed
tags: added: verification-needed
Revision history for this message
Scott Kitterman (kitterman) wrote :

We've installed this and have it running in production with no issues. I believe it's ready to go.

tags: added: verification-done
removed: verification-needed
Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

This bug was fixed in the package python-django - 1.6.11-0ubuntu1

---------------
python-django (1.6.11-0ubuntu1) trusty; urgency=medium

  * Update to final upstream 1.6 microrelease (LP: #1644346)
  * Drop patches included upstream:
    - debian/patches/07_translation_encoding_fix.diff, ticket21869.diff,
      CVE-2014-0472.patch, CVE-2014-0473.patch, CVE-2014-0474.patch,
      CVE-2014-0472-regression.patch, drop_fix_ie_for_vary_1_6.diff,
      is_safe_url_1_6.diff, CVE-2014-0480.patch, CVE-2014-0481.patch,
      CVE-2014-0482.patch, CVE-2014-0483.patch, CVE-2014-0483-bug23329.patch,
      CVE-2014-0483-bug23431.patch, CVE-2015-0219.patch, CVE-2015-0220.patch,
      CVE-2015-0221.patch, CVE-2015-0222.patch, CVE-2015-2316.patch, and
      CVE-2015-2317.patch

 -- Scott Kitterman <email address hidden> Wed, 23 Nov 2016 14:41:31 -0500

Changed in python-django (Ubuntu Trusty):
status: Fix Committed → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
Chris J Arges (arges) wrote : Update Released

The verification of the Stable Release Update for python-django has completed successfully and the package has now been released to -updates. Subsequently, the Ubuntu Stable Release Updates Team is being unsubscribed and will not receive messages about this bug report. In the event that you encounter a regression using the package from -updates please report a new bug using ubuntu-bug and tag the bug report regression-update so we can easily find any regressions.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.
Subscribing...

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.