Comment 1 for bug 2032670

Review for Source Package: gnome-clocks

[Summary]
MIR team ACK

This does not need a security review

List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: gnome-clocks
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: none

Recommended TODOs:
- #1 an autopkgtest would be nice, but TBH I'm unsure if that is doable
  without over-investing, so really please consider this nice to have.

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

[Duplication]
There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.

Furthermore I know from community interactions (and using it myself) that this
can be quite useful to track time across timezones - so it would be great to
have it in main for more than just the requested dependency :-)

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
- 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 test suite that runs at build time
- test suite fails will fail the build upon error (normal dh_auto_test).
- This does not need special HW for build or test
- no new python2 dependency

Problems:
- does not have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest. But then I
  might not be creative enough - the use cases are hard to test in automation
  and the scope is narrow so chances are high that any user of it would find
  an issue if there is one (that is different with stacks that have 1001
  different use cases). Hence I consider an autopkgtest for this package
  nice to have, but not strictly required.

[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
- 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 (all are team members of the now owning team)
- 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
  There is https://docs.gtk.org/gtk4/class.FileChooserDialog.html being
  deprecated, but that has a direct replacement and should be handled fine
  down the road.
- 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. There are quite
  some, but all bad ones are years old. Does not look concerning.
- no dependency on webkit, qtwebkit, seed or libgoa-*
- part of the UI, desktop file is ok
- translation present

Problems: None