-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 08:25 +0100, Sébastien Delafond wrote:
> Hi Ritesh,
> I agree with you, there is no reason we can't coexist :)
> However, perf-tools-unstable doesn't seem to be much more updated these
> days, and it sorta worries me, especially since Brendan Gregg mentions
> on his blog that bcc seems to be the future: in that light, do you still
> see a need for perf-tools-unstable at all ?
Yes. I saw that too. Maybe you'd want to check with him first. If there are no
plans on maintaining it, then perhaps we should discontinue it.
I'd be surprised though, given his tools rely on ftrace, that he'd want to
> If you do, would you be willing to take over its maintainership ? I'm
> trying to save more time to contribute to security work in Debian, so
> you'd be welcome to do that :)
Yes. I can do that. But please, first lets start an email with Brendan (please
CC me too) and clarify on perf-tools-unstable's roadmap.
> Anyway, let me know what you think and we'll take it from there.
For now, I'll just mark perf-tools-unstable as a conflict against this package.
Later, once we've concluded with upstream, we can decide on renaming, or maybe
even merging both sources together, into a single package name.
Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs
Debian - The Universal Operating System
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----