[ Added Konstantin and kernel.org users mailing list ] On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 14:36:40 +0100 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 06:58:53PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 3 Jan 2020 00:49:50 +0100 > > Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Should we move libtraceevent into a stand alone git repo (on > > > > kernel.org), that can have tags and branches specifically for it? We > > > > can keep a copy in the Linux source tree for perf to use till it > > > > > > so libbpf 'moved' for this reason to github repo, > > > but keeping the kernel as the true/first source, > > > and updating github repo when release is ready > > > > > > libbpf github repo is then source for fedora (and others) > > > package > > > > Ah, so perhaps I should follow this? I could keep it a kernel.org repo > > (as I rather have it there anyway). > > sounds good, and if it works out, we'll follow you with libperf :-) > > if you want to check on the libbpf: > https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf > > there might be some syncs scripts worth checking I wonder if there should be a: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/lib/ directory to have: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/lib/traceevent/ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/lib/libbpf/ git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/utils/lib/libperf/ That could hold the libraries that are tight to the kernel? -- Steve > > jirka > > > > > We can have the tools/lib/traceevent be the main source, but then just > > copy it to the stand alone for releases. > > > > Sudip, would this work for you too? (and yes, I plan on acking that > > patch for the -ldl change, after looking at it a little bit more). > > > > -- Steve > >
|