Review for Package: ipmitool

[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.

List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: ipmitool_1.8.18-11ubuntu2


Notes:

- Team is already subscribed

Required TODOs:
1. Package lacks tests. The lack of tests is understandable due to the nature of the
tool (requires hardware). In this case the subscribed team should provide a test plan.
Copy from https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionProcess#Main_Inclusion_requirements, 
section [Quality assurance - testing] :
the subscribed team must provide a written test plan in a comment to the MIR bug, and
commit to running that test either at each upload of the package or at least once each 
release cycle. In the comment to the MIR bug, please link to the codebase of these tests 
(scripts or doc of manual steps) and attach a full log of these test runs. This is meant to
assess their validity (e.g. not just superficial)"

Recommended TODOs:
2. Both upstream and Ubuntu builds have many warnings (mostly type related).
It would be nice, if possible, to address some of those.

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

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
  - ipmitool 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 odd Built-Using entries
- not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
- No vendoring used, all Built-Using are in main

Problems: None


[Security]
OK:
- history of CVEs does not look concerning
- does not use webkit1,2
- does not use lib*v8 directly
- 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)

Problems:
- does open a port/socket
- does deal with cryptography (en-/decryption, certificates, signing, ...)
- does not parse data formats (files [images, video, audio,
  xml, json, asn.1], network packets, structures, ...) from
  an untrusted source.
- does run a daemon as root


[Common blockers]
OK:
- does not FTBFS currently
- no new python2 dependency

Problems:
- does not have a test suite that runs at build time
- does not have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest


[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does carry a delta, but it is reasonable and maintenance under
  control
- symbols tracking not applicable for this kind of code.
- d/watch is present and looks ok (if needed, e.g. non-native)
- Upstream update history is good
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is slow
- 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
- d/rules is rather clean
- It is not on the lto-disabled list

Problems: None


[Upstream red flags]
OK:
- no incautious use of malloc/sprintf (as far as we can check it)
- no use of sudo, gksu, pkexec, or LD_LIBRARY_PATH 
- 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
- no translation present, but none needed for this case (user visible)?

Problems:
- Upstream build has ~160 warnings mostly type related