Review for Package: libyuv

[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 once required TODOs
are resolved.
List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: libyuv0, libyuv-dev, libyuv-utils

Notes:
TODO: - add todos, issues or special cases to discuss
Required TODOs:
1. Please add autopkgtests, the test running at build time can be used for this.
2. Ubuntu current release is behind debian by 8 versions, please sync.
   In newer versions debian has disabled lto because of some tests failing.
Recommended TODOs:
3. Not sure this is a problem wrt MIR but I'll mention it to take a look at just in case.
   I was not able to build the package because it would complain:
   "dpkg-source: error: Version number suggests Ubuntu changes, but Maintainer: does not have Ubuntu address".
   Looking at d/control 
   "Maintainer: Debian Multimedia Maintainers <email address hidden>".
   This does not seem to be a problem when building on launchpad.


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

[Duplication]
This package is required in main as a dependency of libheif package.

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
  - libuyv 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
- Does not include vendored code

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 open a port/socket
- 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:
- does parse data formats (files [images, video, audio,
  xml, json, asn.1], network packets, structures, ...) from
  an untrusted source.

[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.
- 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

[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does carry a delta, but it is reasonable and maintenance under
  control
- symbols tracking is in place
- d/watch is present and looks ok (if needed, e.g. non-native)
- Upstream update history is good
- Debian update history is good
- 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:
- Ubuntu update history is slow
- the current release is not packaged


[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
- 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