On 03/21/2019 11:01 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 04:00:46PM +0000, Andrey Ignatov wrote:
>> luca.boccassi@xxxxxxxxx <luca.boccassi@xxxxxxxxx> [Thu, 2019-03-21 03:26 -0700]:
>>> From: Luca Boccassi <bluca@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Generate a libbpf.pc file at build time so that users can rely
>>> on pkg-config to find the library, its CFLAGS and LDFLAGS.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Boccassi <bluca@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ...
>>> diff --git a/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.pc.template b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.pc.template
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..0ecd334c109f
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/tools/lib/bpf/libbpf.pc.template
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
>>> +prefix=@PREFIX@
>>> +libdir=@LIBDIR@
>>> +includedir=${prefix}/include
>>> +
>>> +Name: libbpf
>>> +URL: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>>> +Description: Linux kernel BPF library
>
> github/libbpf/libbpf is a true mirror of kernel's libbpf.
> I think if we start shipping libbpf.so from kernel and from github
> it will be very confusing to the users...
> Which one is the true libbpf?
> Also the package should mention the license.
> And the license for libbpf is dual lgpl/bsd.
> But if we point to the url above it will not make much sense.
> I think the packages URL should point to github/libbpf/libbpf
> and packaging scripts should be in github only.
>
> Daniel,
> what do you think?
Looking at [0], I don't see where license would be part of the keyword. Given
this is just a pkg-config file where folks using it care mainly about the
needed cflags/libs, it would make sense to me to ship it and have it under
tools/lib/bpf/ in kernel tree (since this is distro independent). If the URL
and Description causes confusion, I would probably just remove the URL field
since it's not mandatory either. And description, I'd put something like
'official BPF library' or such, so it's generic enough.
[0] https://autotools.io/pkgconfig/file-format.html
https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/pkg-config-spec.html#keywords
