Hi, > > Yes I see in > > https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/dpkg-dev/deb-src-symbols.5.en.html > > that his can be used, but my point here is that if the entire file is > > only wildcards and nothing else, tracking symbols is kind of moot, > > right? > > The main purpose of the symbols file is to assist in accurate dependency > generation. That it can also be used to check whether upstreams (that > might not have solid processes to handle library changes), have not > messed up the their symbol modifications, it's a plus.
I didn't quite understand what is the benefit with a symbols file that is all wildcards. The package might as well not have any symbols file as far as I see if it is totally void of actual symbol names. > > Take a look at the file > > https://sources.debian.org/src/openssl/3.5.4-1/debian/libssl3t64.symbols > > - does such a file make sense? > > Except for the deprecated syntax, otherwise yes, it makes perfect sense > (that is, assuming upstream has a good handle over symbol modifications). > > For example for some upstreams for which I maintain libraries, I'd > be extremely comfortable using symver tags, for others (given past > history) not so much. Even if upstreams are competent in general, they might make a mistake and the dpkg-gensymbols should catch that. If you think a particular upstream will never make mistakes, what is the point in having a symbols file for that particular Debian package at all? Even with your explanation above and conclusion "makes perfect sense" I fail to see how. Perhaps I am totally missing something about what is the purpose of tracking ABI changes.
