https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2084228 --- Comment #6 from John Kacur <jkacur@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Jiri We discussed it with the team, and there are a number of reasons that we wish to keep it separate from the subpackages in kernel-tools I won't list them all, but a few important ones. 1. kernel-tools is a group of tools related to each other, bpf, bpf libraries and perf, while rtla is separate unrelated tool from the ones in kernel-tools 2. We which to maintain control of the rtla build separate from the kernel version. - It might not be necessary to provide a new build of rtla everytime the kernel updates - We might wish to provide rtla builds in-between kernel updates - We will be backporting rtla to older kernels as well So, I will be looking into a method of providing an acceptable Source0 for the specfile -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2084228 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-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/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
