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 email@example.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs