On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 15:39:49 -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > 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. Okay, single repo on GitHub: https://github.com/torvalds/linux we are in agreement 😝 Jokes aside, you may need to provide some reasoning on this one.. The recommendation for packaging libbpf from GitHub never had any clear justification either AFAICR. I honestly don't see why location matters. bpftool started out on GitHub but we moved it into the tree for... ease of packaging/distribution(?!) Now it's handy to have it in the tree to reuse the uapi headers. As much as I don't care if we move it (back) out of the tree - having two copies makes no sense to me. As does having it in the libbpf repo. The sync effort is not warranted. User confusion is not warranted. The distroes already package bpftool from the kernel sources, people had put in time to get to this stage and there aren't any complaints. In fact all the BPF projects and test suites we are involved in at Netronome are entirely happy the packaged versions of LLVM and libbpf in Fedora _today_, IOW the GH libbpf is irrelevant to us already. As for the problem which sparked this discussion - I disagree that bpftool should have "special relationship" with the library. In fact bpftool uses the widest range of libbpf's interfaces of all known projects so it's invaluable for making sure that those interfaces are usable, consistent and complete. You also said a few times you don't want to merge fixes into bpf/net. That divergence from kernel development process is worrying. None of this makes very much sense to me. We're diverging from well established development practices without as much as a justification. Perhaps I'm not clever enough to follow. But if I'm allowed to make an uneducated guess it would be that it's some Facebook internal reason, like it's hard to do backports? :/
