pkg-perl-maintainers team mailing list archive

[Ioanna Alifieraki <2039456@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Review for Source Package: libnet-ip-perl

[Summary]

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 not need a security review
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: libnet-ip-perl
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: <None>

Notes:

This package has one big red flag. It is unmaintained upstream the last 10 years.
Debian has made very few releases since then regarding packaging.

Although there are some alternatives also in universe, I am not sure switching to
an alternative is a good idea.
I looked very quickly at libmail-dmarc-perl and how it uses libnet-ip-perl,
and it's using it to represent the IP object. Therefore, I don't think it is
trivial to move to another package. Again, I didn't study it in dept only superficially.

That said, I believe we could move forward with this MIR as long as the requesting team 
commits to maintain the package.
The package does not seem to require a security review at the moment, however requesting team
should reach an agreement with security team on how this package will be dealt in terms of security.

Required TODOs:
1. Requesting team commits to own and maintain the package
2. Agree with security team on how this package will be maintained from a security point of view.
3.  The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted

Recommended TODOs:
4. Address as many as possible of the upstream important bugs as identified in the bug description.

[Rationale, Duplication and Ownership]
There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.
The rationale given in the report seems valid and useful for Ubuntu
Requesting team needs to commit to own long term maintenance of this package.

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
  - libnet-ip-perl checked with `check-mir`
  - all dependencies can be found in `seeded-in-ubuntu` (already in main)
  - none of the (potentially auto-generated) dependencies (Depends
    and Recommends) that are present after build are not in main
- no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
- No dependencies in main that are only superficially tested requiring
  more tests now.

Problems: None

[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 parse data formats (files [images, video, audio,
  xml, json, asn.1], network packets, structures, ...) from
  an untrusted source.
- does not expose any external endpoint (port/socket/... or similar)
- does not process arbitrary web content
- 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)
- does not deal with cryptography (en-/decryption, certificates,
  signing, ...)

Problems: None

[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.
- does have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
- This does not need special HW for build or test
- no new python2 dependency

Problems: None

[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)
- 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:
- Upstream is unmaintained
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is sporadic and regards packaging

[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:
- Important open bugs in upstream

** Changed in: libnet-ip-perl (Ubuntu)
       Status: New => Incomplete

** Changed in: libnet-ip-perl (Ubuntu)
     Assignee: Ioanna Alifieraki (joalif) => (unassigned)

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Debian
Perl Group, which is subscribed to libnet-ip-perl in Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/2039456

Title:
  [MIR] libnet-ip-perl (as libmail-dmarc-perl dependency)

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libnet-ip-perl/+bug/2039456/+subscriptions