[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <529CD9B9.7060003@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 11:04:25 -0800
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...oraproject.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Packaging libtraceevent.so
On 12/2/2013 11:03 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> The question has recently come up in Fedora about packaging the
> libtraceevent.so library. Currently there's 4 users of it:
>
> 1) perf
> 2) trace-cmd
> 3) powertop
> 4) rasdaemon
>
> But each have their own copy of the code.
>
> Both perf and trace-cmd are the major developers of the package, and I
> would recommend that they continue using the *.a version, but for those
> tools that are simple users of the library, it would probably make
> sense to have them use libtraceevent.so and remove their copies from
> the code (powertop and rasdaemon).
>
> The question that I'm posing here is, what currently needs to be done
> to have this happen?
>
> Is the API stable enough for a release?
>
> We probably should have a dot versioning with the .so (ie.
> libtraceevent.so.1)
>
> So what are people's thoughts on this topic?
>
powertop would much rather use a system copy than our own...
but if it's not there in common distros we need to carry our own obviously
--
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