linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 0/5] perf ui/gtk: Separate out GTK codes to a shared object

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]

Date:	Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:51:30 +0900
From:	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
To:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Cc:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/5] perf ui/gtk: Separate out GTK codes to a shared object

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:43:07 +0200 (EET), Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> This is an RFC patchset to separate GTK GUI codes to a shared object,
>> called libperf-gtk.so and use it with libdl.  It's in an early-stage
>> so probably has some rough edges, but I'd like to get some comments.
>> 
>> For now, the libperf-gtk.so (I'm open to a better name suggestion)
>> contains whole libperf.a and libtraceevent.a for simplicity.  And
>> because of that, every single object in perf tools needs to be built
>> as a PIC like libtraceevent does.
>> 
>> As a result, library dependency of the perf itself reduced like this:
>
> [snip]
>
>> To run GTK report browser, you can do it with usual --gtk option but
>> you might need to setup LD_LIBRARY_PATH.
>> 
>>   $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$PWD ./perf report --gtk
>> 
>> Missing LD_LIBRARY_PATH will lead to a fallback TUI or stdio (for 
>> NO_NEWT=1 build) report browser.
>
> What's the benefit of doing this? Requiring users to specify 
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH seems like a major PITA.

Nothing. ;-)  

It should be installed to a proper place - I just missed to do it before
sending it.  And with this RFC patches, I wanted to be confirmed that I
was going to the right direction before doing something silly. :)

Thanks,
Namhyung
--
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/