Comment 2 for bug 1932022

> similar to bug #1907886 if upstream decided to include it in the noinst set they might have a reason?

In bug 1907886 that consideration sounds like it was overridden by the statement: "fedora is including it in their binary though, we could probably do the same for Ubuntu".

As for this bug, 'btvirt' is being packaged by Debian already. On top of that 'btvirt' has no external dependencies (only libc).

So users are requesting 'btvirt' (hence this bug), Debian already packages it, and I see no dependency problems. I see no reason why we can't package it. That doesn't speak for the quality or correctness of the program, but I don't have any evidence that it's below that of other BlueZ binaries. Even if it was, getting it released for people to test it and report bugs seems like the most sensible approach to me.