linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Fix empty version number when building outside of a git repo

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: <YzXvF1eIzJvAfe3U@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 29 Sep 2022 16:16:39 -0300
From:   Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
To:     Will Chandler <wfc@...handler.org>
Cc:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        mingo@...hat.com, mark.rutland@....com,
        alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
        namhyung@...nel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf tools: Fix empty version number when building
 outside of a git repo

Em Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 03:06:06PM -0400, Will Chandler escreveu:
> On 29 Sep 2022, at 6:09, John Garry wrote:
> 
> > Hmmm... maybe someone would want to customise PERF-VERSION-FILE for their own distro. Not sure. But then fiddling with PERF-VERSION-FILE might break the parsing so...I guess not.
> 
> Yeah, seems like a bad idea. Doing a quick search, Void Linux does seem to be
> trying to set a custom version string in their build script[0], but I don't
> think passing PERF_VERSION as an argument to make has worked since 2013 with
> 3cecaa200227 ("perf tools: Do not include PERF-VERSION-FILE to Makefile, 2013-01-16").
> 
> [0] https://github.com/void-linux/void-packages/blob/fdb3515c33f2bb997392ea6992e6bbb82c4376c5/srcpkgs/linux-tools/template#L56
> 
> > BTW, is there any other method of building the perf code not considered? So far I know:
> > a. in git tree
> > b. perf-tar-src-pkg
> > c. tarball
> 
> Those are all that come to mind for me as well.
> 
> Let me know if you'd like me to re-roll the patch using the pre-7572733b8499
> approach.

Discussion is going well, proceed, reach a conclusion and from what I'm
seeing, I'll just have to apply it 8-)

- Arnaldo