Review for Source Package: libfile-sharedir-perl

[Summary]
A relatively small Perl module providing access to read-only data in common file system directories, such as /usr/share for distro data or corresponding Perl module/CPAN directories. There isn't a lot of upstream activity and maintenance is sporadic (but not a lot of activity expected for this kind of module).

MIR team ACK
With some recommended TODOs below

This does not need a security review

List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main:
- libfile-sharedir-perl
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main:
- None

Notes:
#0 Upstream activity and package maintenance is sporadic. The owning team might need to help out in urgent situations.

Required TODOs:
#1 libfile-sharedir-install-perl MIR dependency, bug #2039569 [done]

Recommended TODOs:
#2 The package should get a team bug subscriber before being promoted
#3 Investigate the dh_auto_test (&autopkgtest) non-failures (but error messages). Should those "missing" recommends fail the test and be skipped instead?
   - Error:  Can't locate List/MoreUtils.pm
   - Error:  Can't locate Params/Util.pm

[Rationale, Duplication and Ownership]
OK:
- There is no other package in main providing the same functionality.
- A team is committed to own long term maintenance of this package.
  => ubuntu-server
- The rationale given in the report seems valid and useful for Ubuntu
  => runtime dependency of libmail-dmarc-perl

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no -dev/-debug/-doc packages that need exclusion
- No dependencies in main that are only superficially tested requiring
  more tests now.

Problems:
- other Dependencies to MIR due to this:
  libfile-sharedir-install-perl, bug #2039569

[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, ...)
- this makes appropriate (for its exposure) use of established risk
  mitigation features (dropping permissions, using temporary environments,
  restricted users/groups, seccomp, systemd isolation features,
  apparmor, ...)

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
- if a non-trivial test on this level does not make sense (the lib alone
  is only doing rather simple things), is the overall solution (app+libs)
  extensively covered i.e. via end to end autopkgtest ?
  => Further tests in libmail-dmarc-perl + libtest-file-sharedir-perl
- no new python2 dependency
- not a Python package
- not a Go package

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 update history is sporadic
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is sporadic

[Upstream red flags]
OK:
- no 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 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:
- Errors during the build (during dh_auto_test, but seems to be fine as it's about "missing" recommends: "#TODO recommends")
  Error:  Can't locate List/MoreUtils.pm
  Error:  Can't locate Params/Util.pm