Review for Package: editorconfig-core

[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 need a security review, so I'll assign ubuntu-security

List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main:
- libeditorconfig0, libeditorconfig-dev
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main:
- editorconfig, editorconfig-doc
[They are not actively excluded, just not needed unless we seed them]

Notes:
- none
Required TODOs:
- none
Recommended TODOs:
- #1 this already has a massive build time test, it seems not too complex
  to consider adding the same (and more if more comes to mind) as autopkgtest
  to avoid a regression in release being detected late. There are not too
  many uploads of it, so issues might go undetected for quite a while otherwise.
- #2 In case it makes sense (e.g. not known unstable or incompatible with the
  target gnome version) consider moving to version 0.13 before FF.
- #3 The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted

[Duplication]
Various IDEs, editors and even syntax checkers will already help you to maintain
indents. But sadly none of those in main is usable in the form needed here,
as a re-usable library that will process your text.
So I'd say "There is another package in main providing the same functionality"
but none that can feasibly be used in-place for the gnome editors.
=> Ok

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
- no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion (deps of libeditorconfig-dev
  are safe)
- 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]
- 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 open a port/socket
- 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:
- does parse data formats (xml, json, code, any text) from
  an untrusted source (people open files in their editors - 1995 style mail
  attachment exploits anyone?)
- might process arbitrary web content (open from web into editor), not fully
  arbitrary but a lack of control

=> I'm not sure how the text processing is done, due to the chance of parsing
   uncontrollable input a security review is recommended.

[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 test suite that runs as autopkgtest


[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does carry a delta, but it is reasonable and maintenance under
  control. It was just added and I expect it to land in Debian soon.
- symbols tracking is in place
- d/watch is present and looks ok
- Upstream update history is ok
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is ok
- promoting this does not seem to cause issues for MOTUs that so far
  maintained the package
- no massive Lintian warnings (mostly some smaller d/copyright complains)
- d/rules is rather clean
- It is not on the lto-disabled list

Problems:
- the current release is not packaged, but I do not consider this a big
  problem as this is more about alinging with the gnome versions.

[Upstream red flags]
OK:
- no Errors/warnings during the build (just a few warnings from doc builds)
- 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
- 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 (only indirectly)
- no translation present, but none needed for this case

Problems: None