[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130805083434.GA20606@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 01:34:34 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...radead.org, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: perf, tools: Move gtk browser into separate perfgtk
executable
On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:31:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Nonsense, a distro, if it truly worried about this, could create two
> packages already, there's no need to expose configuration options in the
> binary name itself and burden users with the separation. I sometimes
> switch the UI frontend of perf depending on the workflow and the terminal,
> it would be highly annoying if the binary name was changed to expose
> configuration options.
Which means you'd have to use a different tool name or have incompatible
packages, both of which aren't desirable.
> The thing is, you strongly objected to perf itself when we offered it up
> for an upstream merge and I'm not surprised you still don't like it.
I strongly objected to adding it to the kernel tree, and I still stand
to that opinion because it makes using perf much more painful than it
needs to be. I never disliked perf itself and use it frequently now
that I can bypass some of the pains by just using an older distro
package.
But I'd much rather get this back to technical discussions than personal
attacks..
--
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