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: <5613166f-51f9-18f0-af52-b352aa67326c@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:23:59 +0100
From:   John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To:     Will Chandler <wfc@...handler.org>
CC:     <peterz@...radead.org>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <acme@...nel.org>,
        <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

On 29/09/2022 20:06, Will Chandler wrote:
> 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.
> .

I have a slight preference that you do like pre-7572733b8499 if that is 
ok. The reason is that way was a bit more tried and tested.

Thanks,
John