Hi Seb,
thanks for putting effort into this in general - I know it can be rather time 
consuming to clean up those review findings. You asked me to look again into 
the aspect of the library lacking a symbols file due to the new info presented 
above.

The file is in the normal directory as all other libs (on the current version 
in Eoan):
  /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/usbguard/libusbguard.so.0.0.0
So the placing or naming (0.0.0) of the lib is no "excuse" IMHO.

If the lib is moving fast or is even considered unstable it would be almost 
even more important to track symbols to know what changed for consumers. But if 
it really is
a) only internal
b) not meant to be used by other programs (so far)
c) symbols tracking is just a burden
Why not making it a static link and not ship the lib at all?
I haven't checked the build system usbguard uses if that is easy or hard in 
this case.
But shipping a lib that is not meant to be used as a lib sounds like calling 
for problems.

-- 
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1816548

Title:
  [MIR] usbguard

To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/usbguard/+bug/1816548/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to