On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 10:47 AM MOESSBAUER, Felix <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well... This is a more generic question if it is really the job of the > serializer to fix possible name clashes in the output. Anyways, > unfortunately LTTng uses this field and does not allow escaping.
Although I understand the question, I will not take the time to re-evaluate a design that involves CTF 1.8. I'm currently in a "quick fixes only" mode for this format, with the sole aim of keeping existing scenarios working. > I would love to switch to CTF2, however we need support for it in > trace-compass, which AFAIK is not even implemented yet. We're currently investigating the status of CTF 2 support in Trace Compass and what amount of work is remaining. We'll let you know. > This is tricky, as we don't really know if the trace is an LTTng trace > or not. However, we can hide it behind the proposed create-lttng-index > flag, as it is anyways only needed in combination with an index (I > still don't know why, but ok...). Yes we know. Have a look at make_lttng_trace_path_rel(). `create-lttng-index` would be another hint, but the trace environment has been good enough so far. Phil
