On Thu, 2019-03-21 at 15:01 -0700, 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?
I'm afraid that ship already sailed :-) Users and distributions are
already consuming libbpf from the kernel tree.
> Also the package should mention the license.
> And the license for libbpf is dual lgpl/bsd.
I followed the template from the other pkgconfig file (in traceevent)
which does not have it, but I can add it in v5.
> 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.
If only one side ships the pc file, then you'll have half the users
installing libbpf without a pc file, and the other half with it, so it
would defeat the point of having one in the first place.
> Daniel,
> what do you think?
>
--
Kind regards,
Luca Boccassi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
