[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [F.A.Q.] the advantages of a shared tool/kernel Git repository, tools/perf/ and tools/kvm/

    On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Ted Ts'o wrote:

    > On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:55:09PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
    > > I guess you can do well with a split project as well - my main claim
    > > is that good compatibility comes *naturally* with integration.
    > Here I have to disagree; my main worry is that integration makes it
    > *naturally* easy for people to skip the hard work needed to keep a
    > stable kernel/userspace interface.
    > The other worry which I've mentioned, but which I haven't seen
    > addressed, is that the even if you can use a perf from a newer kernel
    > with an older kernel, this causes distributions a huge amount of pain,
    > since they have to package two different kernel source packages, and
    > only compile perf from the newer kernel source package. This leads to
    > all sorts of confusion from a distribution packaging point of view.
    > For example, assume that RHEL 5, which is using 2.6.32 or something
    > like that, wants to use a newer e2fsck that does a better job fixing
    > file system corruptions. If it were bundled with the kernel, then
    > they would have to package up the v3.1 kernel sources, and have a
    > source RPM that isn't used for building kernel sources, but just to
    > build a newer version of e2fsck. Fortunately, they don't have to do
    > that. They just pull down a newer version of e2fsprogs, and package,
    > build, test, and ship that.
    > In addition, suppose Red Hat ships a security bug fix which means a
    > new kernel-image RPM has to be shipped. Does that mean that Red Hat
    > has to ship new binary RPM's for any and all tools/* programs that
    > they have packaged as separate RPM's? Or should installing a new
    > kernel RPM also imply dropping new binaries in /usr/bin/perf, et. al?
    > There are all sorts of packaging questions that are raised
    > integration, and from where I sit I don't think they've been
    > adequately solved yet.

    This in practice is not a big deal.

    There are many approaches for how the RPM can be built, but basically
    getting the perf source is just a matter of
    make perf-tar-src-pkg or friends such as
    make perf-tarbz2-src-pkg
    which will create perf-3.2.0-rc1.tar, and perf-3.2.0-rc1.tar.bz2
    respectively which can be used for the src rpms. This tar ball can be used
    as a separate package or subpackage.


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-11-08 22:17    [W:0.034 / U:0.968 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site