On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 05:30:44AM +0000, Yonghong Song wrote:
> Jiri,
>
> >>>>>> 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.
> >>
> >> I think we should rename bcc libbpf.so to a different name (maybe
> >> libbcc_bpf.so) to avoid confusions between bcc libbpf and libbpf repo.
> >> The bcc libbpf.so is different from libbpf repo it contains some wrappers...
> >
> > that'd be great first step.. then we could add libbpf
> > package and make bcc depend on it as suggested by Michal
> >
> >>
> >> I will propose to iovisor/bcc mailing list.
> >
> > please keep me in cc for that
>
> Do not know your github name, so not able to cc you on the bcc pull
> request which changes library from libbpf.{a,so} to libbcc_bpf.{a,so}.
> The below is the link:
> https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/pull/2290
it's olsajiri, that should do it, thanks
jirka
