Comment 9 for bug 1948748

> > - Fix the ppc64 FTBFS
> > https://launchpadlibrarian.net/557789130/buildlog_ubuntu-impish-ppc64el.libtpms_0.8.2-1ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz
...
> Neither issue indicates a problem with
> the quality of the code, so I don't think this should block support of the
> package on architectures where it is currently supportable.

Agreed, thanks for having a look at the details

> > Problems:
> > - important open bugs (crashers, etc) in Debian or Ubuntu
> > IMHO there is one worthile to track (but no immediate action needed)
> > FIPS: https://github.com/stefanberger/libtpms/issues/51
>
> Well, as far as I'm aware Canonical has no product for FIPS certification of
> a virtualization stack, so I don't see any reason that FIPS for libtpms
> would be "important" for us.

Yeah, as I said this was "track (but no immediate action needed)" and
mostly meant as a hint for awareness if we ever need to work on it.

> > Recommended TODOs:
> > - While the lib is internal, .symbols tracking usually is cheap and protects
> > even internal libs from some mistakes, consider adding it.
>
> I disagree that this is worthwhile; any changes to the symbols of an
> internal library that cause us to have to make changes to a symbols file are
> busywork.

It has helped in some odd cases, but yeah if you prefer iti without
that or consider it busy-work then I'm totally ok to leave it as is
(that is why it was only in the recommended section).

> > - evaluate the possibility and impact of having "tcsd" in the build
> environment
>
> The problem is that the trousers package is itself buggy and frequently
> fails to install, so build-depending on it for the testsuite is not an
> improvement in QA.

Ok, still thanks for checking that

>
> I believe that addresses everything except for the security review.

Thank you for resolving all the little itches and scratches on this case!
I agree, I think we are good except for the security review.

MIR team ACK (all mandatory requests from the initial review are fulfilled).