Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 03:27:43PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:14:23AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Em Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 02:59:48PM +0100, Jiri Olsa escreveu: > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:41:39AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > > > Shouldn't libopencsd be treated like libbabeltrace was before > > > > the required version was widely available in distros? > > > > > > I.e. these csets should have the rationale for that: > > > > > > Enabling it once it became widely available: > > > > > > 24787afbcd01 ("perf tools: Enable LIBBABELTRACE by default") > > > > > > Disabling it because we would need to get things from tarballs/git > > > > repos, build it in our machines, as requested by Ingo: > > > > > > 6ab2b762befd ("perf build: Disable libbabeltrace check by default") > > > > > > I think at that time we did not have a way to hide the check, > > > now we have FEATURE_DISPLAY seprated so we can still check > > > for it, but users won't be bothered with [ FAIL ] output > > > > Ok, users won't be bothered with the fail output, but we tried hard to > > get the build fast by having it only test for things that are widely > > available, right? I.e. if we know something is not widely available then > > we better not try to build with it and get faster builds, wasn't that > > part of the rationale in the babeltrace case? > > > > If one has to build from sources some library, then its not a problem to > > have in the make command line a LIBOPENCSD=1 switch? > > right, we can do it like that
So I'm applying v2 and we can go on from there, to make progress, ok? I'm adding your Acked-by to all but the build ones, ok? - Arnaldo