On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 09:03:11AM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > 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. And the libbpf.so file which is installed with bcc is "our" libbpf. bcc simply uses libbpf (from the auto-synced standalone repo[0]) as a submodule[1]. To package libbpf and bcc properly in Linux distros we need a possibility to use bcc with shared libbpf library - which probably can be achiveved by small change in bcc's CMakeLists.txt. The standalone repo[0] might be a better base for creating a package than full kernel sources. And using %soversion%+git%sha% (i.e. 0.0.2+git33b017) might be a better version pattern of that package. Cheers, Michal [0] https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf [1] https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt#L12-L16
