Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.kernel > #55941 > unrolled thread

Bug#846597: linux: please enable `perf data' support

Started bySebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>
First post2016-12-02 14:40 +0100
Last post2017-01-26 17:40 +0100
Articles 3 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.kernel


Contents

  Bug#846597: linux: please enable `perf data' support Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2016-12-02 14:40 +0100
    Bug#846597: linux: please enable `perf data' support Hector Oron <zumbi@debian.org> - 2017-01-26 16:40 +0100
      Bug#846597: linux: please enable `perf data' support Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc> - 2017-01-26 17:40 +0100

#55941 — Bug#846597: linux: please enable `perf data' support

FromSebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>
Date2016-12-02 14:40 +0100
SubjectBug#846597: linux: please enable `perf data' support
Message-ID<sJWee-4q8-49@gated-at.bofh.it>

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Package: src:linux
Version: 4.9~rc5-1~exp1
Severity: normal
Tags: patch

Please enable `perf data' support for perf. This requires two extra
dependencies which are already in debian in the required version. During
the invocation of make (for perf) you libbabeltrace needs to be
explicitly enabled. Upstream disabled it by default until more distros
ship a libbabeltrace with the requested functions (and Debian is the
first one).

All this can be found in the patch attached.

Sebastian

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#56764

FromHector Oron <zumbi@debian.org>
Date2017-01-26 16:40 +0100
Message-ID<t3Ujv-Eh-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#55941

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hello,

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 02:37:21PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> diff --git a/debian/templates/control.source.in b/debian/templates/control.source.in
> index 08969a3da9d9..2a1fdf048823 100644
> --- a/debian/templates/control.source.in
> +++ b/debian/templates/control.source.in
> @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ Standards-Version: 3.9.8
>   libperl-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
>   libunwind8-dev [amd64 armel armhf arm64 i386] <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
>   python-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
> + libbabeltrace-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
> + libbabeltrace-ctf-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,

Out of curiosity,

The final patch that got merged has versioned depends on babeltrace >=1.5.0, but
Jessie has 1.2.3. While trying to do a linux kernel backport, I have come up
with a question if we really need babeltrace >=1.5.0 or if 1.2.3 has the needed
features. Do you happen to know?

Note: In anycase, I am preparing a backport of babeltrace.

Regards

>  # used by upstream to build usbip
>   autoconf <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools>,
>   automake <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools>,
> -- 
> 2.10.2
> 


-- 
  Hector Oron

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#56768

FromSebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@breakpoint.cc>
Date2017-01-26 17:40 +0100
Message-ID<t3Vfz-1dq-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#56764
On 2017-01-26 16:36:45 [+0100], Hector Oron wrote:
> Hello,
Hi,

> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 02:37:21PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> > diff --git a/debian/templates/control.source.in b/debian/templates/control.source.in
> > index 08969a3da9d9..2a1fdf048823 100644
> > --- a/debian/templates/control.source.in
> > +++ b/debian/templates/control.source.in
> > @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ Standards-Version: 3.9.8
> >   libperl-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
> >   libunwind8-dev [amd64 armel armhf arm64 i386] <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
> >   python-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
> > + libbabeltrace-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
> > + libbabeltrace-ctf-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>,
> 
> Out of curiosity,
> 
> The final patch that got merged has versioned depends on babeltrace >=1.5.0, but
> Jessie has 1.2.3. While trying to do a linux kernel backport, I have come up
> with a question if we really need babeltrace >=1.5.0 or if 1.2.3 has the needed
> features. Do you happen to know?

You need babeltrace >= 1.5.0 for perf-data to work and that was the
whole point of libbabeltrace.
If you don't care about perf-data you can drop that babeltrace
dependency (and not enable it later while building perf).
I am happy that the next stable will bring working perf-data
to Debian and I don't need it in backports (as it will introduce yet
another library).

> Note: In anycase, I am preparing a backport of babeltrace.
> 
> Regards

Sebastian

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.kernel


csiph-web