On Thu, Nov 05, 2020 at 12:03:43PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > Given that dpdk is not providing any build process for going from > tap_bpf_program.c to tap_bpf_insns.h, it looks to me like the upstream > project effectively considers "tap_bpf_insns.h" to be their preferred > source form, and tap_bpf_program.c as just a reference for its > original creation. > > IOW, to me it looks like this embedded BPF program shouldn't be > considered a binary from Fedora POV and can be used as is. One example of a package doing something incorreclty doesn't mean it is okay to continue that practice. I'd argue thet dpdk needs to be fixed to provide the original source code and build scripts for the BPF program. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
