[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090611212635.GA9446@uranus.ravnborg.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:26:35 +0200
From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@...nborg.org>
To: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...glemail.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Performance Counters for Linux
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:17:16PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> > > So you are saying that only good code comes from including it into
> > > linux-2.6.git and otherwise you will never get there. Have you actually
> > > tried to maintain this in a separate repository on kernel.org?
> >
> > Could you please remind us what the arguments agains including a few
> > seleted tools within the kernel source tree was.
> >
> > I ask because I really cannot see why so much nosie is generated?
> > As a naive user that like easy access to the stuff I work with
> > this looks like an optimal place to find the kernel-hacking
> > tools I need. Why should I hunt somewhere else to find it?
>
> I personally would expect a perf.git on kernel.org for the userspace
> tools for it. Like we have udev.git there, iproute2.git and others.
>
> Seems to be working perfectly fine (except of course oprofile) and makes
> packaging and security updates a lot easier.
There is nothing preventing us from adding support for rpm and source rpms.
So you just grab the relevant tre and issue a few cammnds and you have your
packages.
And for security fixes we have the stable kernels.
> The distros have always a
> really hard problem with releasing new kernel packages.
There is nothing that say that because the code live inside
the kernel tree you _have_to_ release the full kernel source
to release a tool.
You mix up the fact that the source for the tool live inside the
kernel with the way tools are packaged.
Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists