Comment 3 for bug 2056099

Review for Source Package: tree

[Summary]
This is mature software and the pacakge is in pretty good state.
They only problem is missing tests at build time.
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: tree
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: <None>

Notes:
Required TODOs:
1. There are no tests running at build time. Could you please add some ?
   This could be the same tests with autopackage test, but running at build time,
   and fail the build in case of an error.

- The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted

[Rationale, Duplication and Ownership]
There are other packages in main providing the same functionality, however tree is better
and makes sense to have it in main.
Foundations 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 other Dependencies to MIR due to this
 - SRCPKG 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

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

Problems:
- does not have a test suite that runs at build time

[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 (as far as we can check it)
- 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 important open bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu
- 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

Problems: None