Comment 3 for bug 1077484

libsemanage review:
 * Does it FTBFS currently? needs libustr-dev, otherwise builds fine
 * Does it have a test suite? yes, enabled in the build
 * If it's a Python package, does it use dh_python3/dh_python2? no
 * If it's a Python package going on the desktop CD, will it pull in Python 2? it only builds with python2, but since we only want libsemanage1, libsemanage1-dev and libsemanage-common, python2 won't be pulled onto the desktop CD
 * Does Ubuntu carry a delta? no
 * It has a symbols file
 * Does it have a bug subscriber in Ubuntu? no
 * Does it have a watch file? yes, but it doesn't detect a new version correctly (ie, 2.1.9 is available, but uscan reports 'libsemanage: remote site does not even have current version')
 * Is its update history slow or sporadic? it is fine
 * Is the current release packaged? in Debian experimental only
 * Will entering main make it harder for the people currently keeping it up to date? no
 * Lintian warnings: it's clean
 * Is debian/rules a mess? there are several overrides primarily dealing with python and ruby support, but it is reasonable enough
 * Errors/warnings during the build: no
 * Incautious use of malloc/sprintf: seems fine
 * Uses of sudo or LD_LIBRARY_PATH: no
 * Important bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu: no
 * Does the package have a CVE history? no
 * It is widely used and well maintained upstream. Package does not warrant a security audit at this time.

Would be nice if libsemanage had a bug subscriber and the watch file were fixed. This does not block the MIR. ACK