On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 01:54:05PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 13:16:13 -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > I wonder what big advantage having bpftool in libbpf's Github repo > > brings, actually? The reason we need libbpf on github is to allow > > other projects like pahole to be able to use libbpf from submodule. > > There is no such need for bpftool. > > > > I agree about preference to release them in sync, but that could be > > easily done by releasing based on corresponding commits in github's > > libbpf repo and kernel repo. bpftool doesn't have to physically live > > next to libbpf on Github, does it? > > +1 > > > Calling github repo a "mirror" is incorrect. It's not a 1:1 copy of > > files. We have a completely separate Makefile for libbpf, and we have > > a bunch of stuff we had to re-implement to detach libbpf code from > > kernel's non-UAPI headers. Doing this for bpftool as well seems like > > just more maintenance. Keeping github's Makefile in sync with kernel's > > Makefile (for libbpf) is PITA, I'd rather avoid similar pains for > > bpftool without a really good reason. > > Agreed. Having libbpf on GH is definitely useful today, but one can hope > a day will come when distroes will get up to speed on packaging libbpf, > and perhaps we can retire it? Maybe 2, 3 years from now? Putting > bpftool in the same boat is just more baggage. Distros should be packaging libbpf and bpftool from single repo on github. Kernel tree is for packaging kernel.
