Comment 22 for bug 1892559

Thank you Marco and Sebastien,

> * the launchpad buglist has been triaged a bit and fixed issues closed

Thanks!
From your bug cleanup did you spot any kind of setup/HW that you want to restrict/exclude?
Was there any common pattern that makes up most of the formerly seen bad reports?

> * the dh_missing has been reported to Debian now, https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=987817

Yeah, I think that is enough for now.

> the libraries are private (no .so provided, other softwares can't really build with it), ideally they would move it to a subdir but do we really need .symbols added in such cases?

I agree this is a case where it is a tough decision if it is strictly required due to them being "meant" private.
But I'd not agree that there are no .so files provided.

root@h:~# dpkg -L opensc opensc-pkcs11 | grep '\.so'
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libopensc.so.7.0.0
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsmm-local.so.7.0.0
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/onepin-opensc-pkcs11.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/opensc-pkcs11.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkcs11-spy.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libopensc.so.7
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libsmm-local.so.7
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkcs11/onepin-opensc-pkcs11.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkcs11/opensc-pkcs11.so
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/pkcs11/pkcs11-spy.so

$ nm --dynamic $(dpkg -L opensc-pkcs11 | grep '\.so' | xargs) | pastebinit
https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/7SpfQ5gW26/

So there are in theory symbols, but I agree it still is not really usable (or meant to be used).
As there are for example no headers for it :-)

And OTOH adding symbols files is a rather trivial task that protects against some bad breakage.
So is it strictly mandatory: hmm, debatable ... I guess no.
I'd say as prereq add symbols OR move to subdir - of which the latter is the much more useful and correct thing to do. And as there are no other users you won't have to touch any other package for that change.