linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: Build linux-tools package with 'make deb-pkg'

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1329450390.3258.36.camel@deadeye>
Date:	Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:46:30 +0000
From:	Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
To:	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
	maximilian attems <max@...o.at>,
	debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
	Ubuntu kernel team <kernel-team@...ts.ubuntu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kbuild: Build linux-tools package with 'make
 deb-pkg'

On Fri, 2012-02-17 at 03:16 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 19:57 +0100, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > Also build a linux-tools package for installation so that
> > common tools run without issues (e.g. perf).
> > 
> > [RFC note: This may break with x-compilation when the
> >            x-compilation environment is not set up to
> > 	   compile user-space programs. Is that acceptable?
> > 	   I also thought about a compile-time parameter
> > 	   such as 'make TOOLS=1 deb-pkg' or a special
> > 	   'make deb-tools-pkg' target.	Opinions? ]
> > 
> > Cc: Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>
> > Cc: maximilian attems <max@...o.at>
> > Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>
> > Cc: debian-kernel@...ts.debian.org
> > Cc: linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org
> > Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
> > ---
> >  scripts/package/builddeb |   55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/scripts/package/builddeb b/scripts/package/builddeb
> > index eee5f8e..8466380 100644
> > --- a/scripts/package/builddeb
> > +++ b/scripts/package/builddeb
> > @@ -78,17 +78,19 @@ tmpdir="$objtree/debian/tmp"
> >  fwdir="$objtree/debian/fwtmp"
> >  kernel_headers_dir="$objtree/debian/hdrtmp"
> >  libc_headers_dir="$objtree/debian/headertmp"
> > +tools_dir="$objtree/debian/toolstmp"
> >  packagename=linux-image-$version
> >  fwpackagename=linux-firmware-image
> >  kernel_headers_packagename=linux-headers-$version
> >  libc_headers_packagename=linux-libc-dev
> > +tools_packagename=linux-tools-$version
> 
> The advice I got from one of the perf developers - possibly Peter
> Zijlstra - was that changes to the perf kernel interface are backward-
> compatible but newer versions of the perf tool may depend on newer
> kernel features.  New features involve a bump to the 2nd (at the time,
> it was the 3rd) version component unless you're building from a perf
> development branch.
> 
> So to avoid package proliferation the package name should be
> linux-tools-$VERSION.$PATCHLEVEL and the executable filenames should be
> something like perf_$VERSION.$PATCHLEVEL-$subcommand.
[...]

Sorry, the executable filename is just perf_$VERSION.$PATCHLEVEL.  Only
the manual pages for sub-commands are actually separate files.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Beware of programmers who carry screwdrivers. - Leonard Brandwein

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (829 bytes)