Comment 3 for bug 1990573

Review for Package: ruby-ruby2-keywords

Thanks for the answer Lucas, I agree to your analysis.
And it was worth having a look, at least we got rid of ruby-backports with
the same approach.

I agree that the lib itself is small and not too complex, so I'm doing a
re-revaluation. Along that - as expected - it is IMHO a rather straight
forward case.

[Summary]
MIR team ACK

This does not need a security review.

List of specific binary packages to be promoted to main: ruby-ruby2-keywords
Specific binary packages built, but NOT to be promoted to main: <none>

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

[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 (none)
- 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.
  It really is just a syntax compatibility layer, not even parsing or
  translating the data on the way through.
- 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: None

[Common blockers]
OK:
- does not FTBFS currently
- does have a test suite that runs at build time
  Doesn't test much, but then the function is also rather small, tests
  it in both ruby language styles which is importnat given what this
  PKG does.
  - test suite fails will fail the build upon error.
- does have a non-trivial test suite that runs as autopkgtest
  (same as build tests, which is ok for this code)
- This does not need special HW for build or test
- no new python2 dependency

Problems: None

[Packaging red flags]
OK:
- Ubuntu does not carry a delta
- symbols tracking not applicable for this kind of code.
- d/watch is present and looks ok
- Upstream update history is slow, but ok
- Debian/Ubuntu update history is slow (ok, following upstreams slowness)
- the current release is packaged
- promoting this does not seem to cause issues for MOTUs that so far
  maintained the package (most maint is with debian ruby team which we
  have team members being a part of)
- no massive Lintian warnings
- d/rules is rather clean
- It is not on the lto-disabled list

Problems: None

[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
- use of setuid, but ok because TBD (prefer systemd to set those
  for services)
- no important open bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu (= none)
- 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: None