On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 5:53 AM Daniel Borkmann <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/25/2019 01:21 PM, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > hi guys,
> > we want to package libbpf and I'd like to coordinate
> > with you on some issues I've met on this:
> >
> > 1) I think libbpf should be part of kernel-tools-libs and kernel-tools-libs-devel,
> > which would look like below (from early rpm build):
> >
> > $ rpm -qpl kernel-tools-libs-5.0.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> > /usr/lib/.build-id
> > /usr/lib/.build-id/ca
> > /usr/lib/.build-id/ca/654da1e5ea553f985e28b8d98ad24e51f19e88
> > /usr/lib/.build-id/f6
> > /usr/lib/.build-id/f6/a788b316f26fbe70db47bfc0ef500348117023
> > /usr/lib64/libbpf.so.0
> > /usr/lib64/libbpf.so.0.0.1
> > /usr/lib64/libcpupower.so.0
> > /usr/lib64/libcpupower.so.0.0.1
> > /usr/share/licenses/kernel-tools-libs
> > /usr/share/licenses/kernel-tools-libs/COPYING
> >
> > $ rpm -qpl kernel-tools-libs-devel-5.0.0-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm
> > /usr/include/bpf/bpf.h
> > /usr/include/bpf/btf.h
> > /usr/include/bpf/libbpf.h
> > /usr/include/cpufreq.h
> > /usr/include/cpuidle.h
> > /usr/lib64/libbpf.a
> > /usr/lib64/libbpf.so
> > /usr/lib64/libcpupower.so
> >
> > Do you see libbpf as a standalone package or kernel-tools-libs* wuold be ok for you?
>
> My preference is definitely on making libbpf a stand-alone package, so
> people can just install 'libbpf' or 'libbpf-dev{,el}' and are good to
> go. Also given the pace it's growing these days, it absolutely qualifies
> as a stand-alone package.
+1
libbpf should be standalone package and not part of kernel-tools.
> > 2) There's already bcc-devel's libbpf library packaged:
> >
> > $ rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libbpf.so
> > bcc-devel-0.8.0-1.fc28.x86_64
> >
> > so there's a conflict.. any chance we could rename libbpf to
> > something else like:
> >
> > libbpf2.so
> > libbpfobject.so
> > libbpfbest.so
> > ...?
>
> I don't think we should rename the official libbpf package, this will
> just create plain confusion and will make it much harder for potential
> users to adapt in the long-term since we aim for /everyone/ to consume
> official libbpf library instead of hacking their own.
>
> I think bcc folks are migrating to official libbpf as well, at least
> that was my impression. Imho, this would need fixing on bcc side then.
bcc migrated to libbpf some time ago.
