xReview for Package: raqm

[Summary]
MIR team ACK, under the constraint that the autopktests possible enhancements are a little bit more explored (see below) and that check (I didn’t see any rationale in the request) on why raqm hasn’t been updated despite having new releases for a year now.

Recommended TODOs:
- check if the autopkgtests can be enhanced
- check why 0.7.1 and 0.7.2 ara available (from Nov 2020 for the former) without any update on debian/ubuntu. As the package hasn’t changed for multiple releases. I think those fixes are not distro-patched either.

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

[Dependencies]
OK:
- no other Dependencies to MIR due to this
- checked with check-mir
- not listed in seeded-in-ubuntu
- 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.

[Embedded sources and static linking]
OK:
- no embedded source present
- no static linking
- does not have odd Built-Using entries

OK:
- not a go package, no extra constraints to consider in that regard
- No vendoring used, all Built-Using are in main

[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
- 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)

[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:
- the autopkgtest test is trivial: build it, run it, don’t check the output. Can we maybe check the output given known inputs and see what is returned is expected?

[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does not carry a delta
- symbols tracking is in place
- d/watch is present and looks ok (if needed, e.g. non-native)
- Upstream update history is slow, but seems in maintainance mode
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is slow
- promoting this does not seem to cause issues for MOTUs that so far
  maintained the package
- no massive Lintian warnings (only older lintian version used)
- d/rules is rather clean
- It is not on the lto-disabled list
  (fix, or the work-around should be directly in the package,
  see https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lto-disabled-list)

Problems:
- the current release and previous one is not packaged. The previous release is more than one year old.

[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