* Yannick Brosseau ([email protected]) wrote: > So the 1b) options sounds good in this area.
1b (doing the libust .so detection at configure time) is much less clean and flexible than the option I refered to in my previous email. 1b turns into a static build-time detection what should really be dynamic detection of compatible applications talking the same libust protocol, based on a separate library with version number on the protocol. Mathieu > > On 2011-06-15 11:24, David Goulet wrote: > > Exactly! Thus having a hard dependency is completely out of question. > > > > On 11-06-15 11:21 AM, Yannick Brosseau wrote: > > > > >> Enlighten me Yannick :) > > >> > > >> # apt-get install lttng-tools > > >> > > >> How are you going to have the UST support without installing the UST > > >> package > > >> (assuming that libustcomm is inside ust) ? > > >> > > >> I figure you'll have a "Not found libust.so..." at execution time ? > > > > > Exactly, for the *runtime* dependency, that would be a *recommand* and > > > we detect if libusb is present or not. But that's really up to the > > > packager to decide how he does it. Each distro might have their own > > > policies. > > > > > As the upstream developer, you should let the user decide if he want UST > > > support or not. I might be building an embedded system were space is a > > > constraint and I would want to only have the kernel tracer and not > > > bother with he userspace one. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ltt-dev mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > ltt-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev > -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
