Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:07:51 -0400 | | From | Kyle McMartin <> | | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux |
| |
[With my Fedora on.]
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:06:55AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > So what point is there in keeping it in-tree except making life hell for > > packagers? > > Give it up. Packagers can trivially generate their own sub-packages. They > do it all the time. They already do it for the user-mode header files, > extracted from the kernel - something you've worked on yourself. > > So your point is clearly bogus, and dishonest. > > You haven't actually looked the real problem in the eye, and acknowledged > the disaster that is oprofile. Let's give a _new_ approach a chance, and > see if we can avoid the mistakes of yesteryear this time. >
This is actually somewhat complicated for (at least, I can only speak from experience for...) Fedora and Debian/Ubuntu. Having this in-kernel means any bugfixes needed for the 'perf' tool, require patching the kernel source, which will result in a whole new kernel rpm being built. So in order to update their 'perf' tool, users will get a new kernel, debuginfo, etc., with it.
So either we need to split it out into its own source tarball, or ship the kernel source again in a seperate source package. I know which I'm going to tend to favour...
Obviously, I understand the reasons for doing this, but I don't really see it as a sensible long term option for a mature tool. But, whatever, it's not my call. We'll just work around whatever happens.
regards, Kyle
|  |