Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
On Dec/29, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > I've just pushed my changes to the git repo. Could you please review > it once ? I'd like you to have your comments/feedback before we > decide on uploading it. > > Apart from the main file name change, there are other minor changes. It all looks good to me. > PS: If you want to, please review and upload. Otherwise, if you want > me to do it, please let me know. I've pushed a change removing myself from the Uploaders field: it's basically your package now :) Feel free to upload whenever you like ! Cheers, --Seb
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello Sebastien, I've just pushed my changes to the git repo. Could you please review it once ? I'd like you to have your comments/feedback before we decide on uploading it. Apart from the main file name change, there are other minor changes. PS: If you want to, please review and upload. Otherwise, if you want me to do it, please let me know. Thanks, Ritesh On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 15:17 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 10:41 +0100, Sébastien Delafond wrote: > > > So, unless there is a concern, I'd want to target this change for the > > > next upload of both the tools. The bpfcc follow-up upload is pending > > > because of a FTBFS bug. And on the perf-tools side, there haven't been > > > any substantial changes lately, warranting an upload. > > > > > > But whatever triggers the upload, we'll make this change included ? > > > > Sounds good to me. Maybe worth documenting in README.Debian as well ? > > Yes. Will do. Thanks for mentioning. > - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlhlUtoACgkQpjpYo/Lh dWkt2RAAl1HbR4W2xzcL/+WFfN3hUf95j32ocLvUxdFteK+4RiqPVoZ5HQEjCB6/ BFQl/Q6+BYDeBC9qiJ07OyNWKvtGsWTih9JDhRn+jcxVNe72ZA/N63EqsmDyK/cW nbEMEktI1npS5bzcCzkTeLA/ldv0CrcLljUSGLUrVn578MTaH9Imxh1HuRwT/F4C /WM3HPLvtZc3F4zVtbXmZTzGWjDYFFVwlQ+urMQQsIIVAS+v9LdJfV8bh0n9mUk4 71YUmiskoaCWfgy3JaD48/KM5CzP+5AnbFKoFhfKf9bcmPXSTLNefg/NEDyFjn25 jWmNnxrfU940yXCZKn92z3tPO1hemsQo6E4aC1WNq0fwXgX+jaikNS1t7zTPkw2M KTO5vT623ojN6OvgIumgCowwVIZL5mBOJ+XRCQ2SYGVy5eKSyxrA5w40VkJBP7AV 4jmeD9cLCEA5nTDl0maSVURDiwsOlYUqzYK+tvkeI9IoECESI2vvLwp9sM9eu7zX llgUJ6lJ5qrstQpcGCDAtSDdRJzaxSMJYCNiKGM55bVLbb8+XemzJ/8EczuyjEKb kiEy9Z751ByMmrorBvfV+4crieAAtt1AIgGwcui8ZMlEs9v+E9gGieQG5cTabl6t 8CloHtwansEk+2TfdrH+FAb2cYhad5gnkKKqIIahNElSNAmii3A= =ZgxB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 10:41 +0100, Sébastien Delafond wrote: > > So, unless there is a concern, I'd want to target this change for the > > next upload of both the tools. The bpfcc follow-up upload is pending > > because of a FTBFS bug. And on the perf-tools side, there haven't been > > any substantial changes lately, warranting an upload. > > > > But whatever triggers the upload, we'll make this change included ? > > Sounds good to me. Maybe worth documenting in README.Debian as well ? Yes. Will do. Thanks for mentioning. - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlhk26oACgkQpjpYo/Lh dWkoiQ/9GZLp9jObIhmFuABBWspuJ5nuZQVbP4T5OFNG58kr1AOWksq0ksrx/Jhs YLBzK20OVC3rUtlYQVIx0ydkBN5uSvcRtJnuxfQJQ/F3odTk3zsF5/7GvlUumlc/ THtIflRBTUB7K9E0bxWNKlrK9xJrhcVQsQKQCU72yamjyaYFii/DeAQbG8MMAKvb HHEttCJJ1AbPHVS8xMg3Yi1HDERFjSQc572rdYMROnZ/z5tN5BEWZrmEae4XUAI+ 09PudJrCVTHnbqYXX/a6qXpz0KHQxNc9wktEf5PMEIYzFxg4Baco2PtKFXY7OXm/ rLWncdV8R0XkEX1+/z17uX35HbmnvePzPoSFMhoy1zxSn4L8UQEs+cERD0DQbwWS PifuP9B5tT8/JByK3CmA23z7uTx/wv5MrkN8FvHYbpLTNSHEq1LdruUk/R7UrHCB P6VE8KOPQy2dtHxRjQg+xso9thQXEQD+666ELcQqYrMmzTStU3TKEK//qsXNW3Hf sd3X7eKX6JiySCkDXpvp6X0HJ3Bz7Mm69uGC6vNWaSl4HR8e7mdmsOysrSUuVWmJ D/OTuA3RI1nf9G51nt8fcQgdX1nT2TSw40C6sYc7Omn2HiLQQB+fY4tIjV2wRbpw iZXfdxsyAKsVfyTR1gHkTEQDjDJ7ukf7rZGiZOwPfOJ4ThcmSt4= =5P2H -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
On Dec/29, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > I think we should stick with this proposal of appending the type along > with the name. > > 1. On autocompletions, it'd autocomplete to "execsnoop-", which is an > invalid name either way. This will expect the user to pay attention > and fire the correct command. > > 2. This approach is explicit, visible and allows for co-existence for > both. > > So, unless there is a concern, I'd want to target this change for the > next upload of both the tools. The bpfcc follow-up upload is pending > because of a FTBFS bug. And on the perf-tools side, there haven't been > any substantial changes lately, warranting an upload. > > But whatever triggers the upload, we'll make this change included ? Sounds good to me. Maybe worth documenting in README.Debian as well ? Cheers, --Seb
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 23:18 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > The binary file names are conflicting for bcc and perf-tools-unstable. I don't > see a reason why one cannot co-install both the packages and use. But in its > current form, it'll fail complaining file overwrites. > > Personally, I don't think the alternatives route may be of much use because > apart from this 2 packages, I don't see any other package using these names. > Also, IMO, the alternatives feature is usually useful for common tools like > editor, pager etc. > > One option could be that we append the names of the binaries explicitly. > Example, for bcc => execsnoop-bcc, perf-tools => execsnoop-perf > > What do you say ? Or if you have any suggestions, please do mention. I think we should stick with this proposal of appending the type along with the name. 1. On autocompletions, it'd autocomplete to "execsnoop-", which is an invalid name either way. This will expect the user to pay attention and fire the correct command. 2. This approach is explicit, visible and allows for co-existence for both. So, unless there is a concern, I'd want to target this change for the next upload of both the tools. The bpfcc follow-up upload is pending because of a FTBFS bug. And on the perf-tools side, there haven't been any substantial changes lately, warranting an upload. But whatever triggers the upload, we'll make this change included ? - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlhk2dAACgkQpjpYo/Lh dWkoEhAArTzTKmnb/m48slA0GJxV6J4IqJTdTzQ3DOg/T5HRtHdIanB0YDFk5bPb cQfAA7ovuk92C3WOeOu39LujxvZp8iy6Unx3olqGs1VDuK623kTc/9jQkCDiVr6f 3kgmoajL8XL34m45DHnmTOwnNpZif2oemQWGQx0RcR+Dc2tgjvmquUduzCQLgdym dSOpMXHXLUJei6HbGXdWXh0ohb7uzGm8U/P8McyJ3mSIZtiIdG0wl+iTqF6EfslI bDmleFZqiARij9DqOPWPZr7cjJaBjdCzCpL1FbamcxYk+qNocRVcSfX/kapJjUUn ZY8C8J+Cow8sZEkCTTH7HR7Yr4upsyVwrFsz4uB2aqWWu5GQ0/iPBRA4T+0NTu1k z6SSuY86vP79jcSJDH3TjVcX2Sme3XPBSG0UFu+yftGILq2XkAAcp7wS42B0AYDw 5fwwOKH9OpIotolQnSTBJUs2cebLArI6mr+cf7jtp1/LUGqS0myZmLc9UjP2lKki MKqSYtkWvmnlq1LwTF7PV7eqMzyNdj39W+N7iKrIYfs5KC5PrGnwvH7ydr3LWrSd TzcLKKjEYS+YldoJLjwd4Zy/bntBHWC+UMvG/0rwISMafT7GIU6cZS+L/CRscop+ +xzZ6ZMOWuojlwZYCNA3qyZwEjE7y5F31p6NcCoKDVah2tAljf4= =zgA+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Sebastien, 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 discontinue them. > 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- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlhAIJUACgkQpjpYo/Lh dWmGgg//UqHbsZl/XB9YnelXmol93x1P5vSEiaJNLZtVUEI/zQfxd3YR5KCMzj5f SOKdJxnFyZ+SR5bOfBMm/uzViXd5bnuYxgfEYStkhsyL5L6hPao+Lha0LMyD0fNN eNzP9WBHUItFE5CgqHWdHjArQdEeDm0g6yxxMYnGyE2UD+uFW6uayc4ADTsuz/up TMGdTe8DYSQnPcvsaPRLGzjFNrZwo94LOV+DK2yhaBl26AEgp53RBSc4HdJ3u7e5 ap22iiItJC/QSpeMrOAfwsC5/w6pXqUY7DIfRhU/tC4fO4kwG1hAfvwb991MMW2D QKOHeK2UMy7Ta+BlwhFZFPa0PSZ7SswkXMmazL6s7f2WkRiLL9YM/U5daNWVbckq Cf8DaIsGEVgvmB24TzuYghcj5ywSybJLz8Ce8222aRX/b1S1ro6Lgr4BE20SfMzd CrMX8IAcejF8zMqBkAOcqzcSwvMnkdDfckLDxRglBRWceVkaqqdoclrSYdstFZmO 57hCyaci72T9o2cLQwAqtnWzyEiRsbaV1kOe609J3WVBwsiVXKLP1z7YDoSxojPZ b/r/yMJ1dWFVHCgzAlHJowVt8quiwNQIs9dN36lBH/csKsUChUAikEB6lt3Ohmtu 1viuidiDlfWabQNz6hfQQ2FMXW0T2vVKcoXtfaKOnmNcj+fV+zA= =FMuo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 22:40 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote: > > many thanks for the explanation, so from a technical point of > > view there is no package naming conflict, although it is somewhat > > counter-intuitive to end up with a source-package "bcc" and a > > binary-package "bcc" where the latter isn't built from the former > > but instead contains a completely different application. > > Maybe the new source package could be named bpf-bcc? That way there > would be no confusion with respect to bin:bcc vs. src:bcc, and the > source package name is still quite short, yet descriptive. Just a > suggestion. How about ? src: bpfcc bin: bpfcc-tools, libbpfcc, libbpfcc-dev, bpfcc-lua, python-bpfcc This relates well to what the tool is: BPF Compiler Collection, both in src and binary names. I think I'll stick with this name unless there are concerns. Thanks. - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlhAHaAACgkQpjpYo/Lh dWnMqg/+JGft9tC0/Pmvi4dAWeBw1dXHf86+8U06LDe05N+PS6c3ery6WsmMKdEM Nav7tcqjCBHESHHm1PrifWU8CSJqizwoPStD8jsBF7woRbD/FPIE2+N4ZCXI1mBq doSwMcuZt/LfFhKR/lwmptl1HS2FfNDr/pJCGd0D7ZVtaUSqEFES5vDwx5YE5S9E MyeYmW56hxEmcb5ASIjHHqGnTAG7wd1tKoQn2w7tcTAbdfSBgU53jlSekiy/b7fC y3o8EzUCjQBnrCQGPXN1/0jpaqrf5e4wq8ETpttV25P+dZNAa4jtf7SuHRcZnMDg UfzmTl45YxZVbOKWAX6UykYMgyUUSzYC1aQPGRyY1M9dgruAWRUTK0OzBaYmgAkv 9UDDaNPtMOLFR6YW3ZndH0qfkZIl6q0+WJVqDBBBmsPPZFRd9ilVyXv0UQffl2c3 9Etwh48wp/aFFnyG1IOqteuE688Y9CFTO6cVxHbkXRQx4C4xWZ4vjxGQC/r0j4Ne OFGk4zjFdMdfeNYGMfofe6IyUy6YhbCQavj25sXGM/ed2P0V8yWMnaMjnX94+L6m UL8102MZS2ei3FF/lyrubD0Up59rQCeNygJDqM9gXDT44PUY829qXaJqeNlstsAK 6mkvMyDiMj1A5rZnrY7Ge9i6RWibFvqiUssFixE0ToNwKExC6ZE= =9yGo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
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 ? 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 :) Anyway, let me know what you think and we'll take it from there. Cheers, --Seb On Nov/30, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Hello Sebastien, > > First of all, thanks for maintaining perf-tools-unstable. I use it many a > times. > > I just completed the major chunk of bcc packaging. I intend to maintain it > under > collab-maint/ too. > > > The binary file names are conflicting for bcc and perf-tools-unstable. I don't > see a reason why one cannot co-install both the packages and use. But in its > current form, it'll fail complaining file overwrites. > > Personally, I don't think the alternatives route may be of much use because > apart from this 2 packages, I don't see any other package using these names. > Also, IMO, the alternatives feature is usually useful for common tools like > editor, pager etc. > > One option could be that we append the names of the binaries explicitly. > Example, for bcc => execsnoop-bcc, perf-tools => execsnoop-perf > > What do you say ? Or if you have any suggestions, please do mention. > > Thanks, > Ritesh > > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 22:50 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > Owner: Ritesh Raj Sarraf > > > > * Package name: bcc > > Version : 0.2.0 > > Upstream Author : IO Visor Project (https://github.com/iovisor) > > * URL : https://github.com/iovisor/bcc > > * License : Apache 2.0 > > Programming Lang: C, Python > > Description : Tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC) > > > > BPF Compiler Collection (BCC) is a toolkit for creating efficient > > kernel tracing and manipulation programs > > . > > It makes use of extended BPF (Berkeley Package Filter) and provides tools > > for BPF based Linux IO analysis, networking, monitoring and more > > > > This is a great tool to debug and instrument your kernel and > > applications. It also is a a performance characterization and analysis > > tool > > > > I have an interest in Debugging and Analysis and I intend to use and > > maintain it under Debian. > > > > As with most of my packages, I intend to maintain it under collab-maint > - -- > Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs > Debian - The Universal Operating System > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlg/EPQACgkQpjpYo/Lh > dWle6xAAsRRfIO3oUvk6wN4NXanqQark//nvE5ezt2RPlx4SUYWA3WWJas1bbGA8 > AdnJMKvqYD1wkBmuSRU5S+Ne6kXjat8GQCPiYBi1IS1mcUQXRT/MoKce3YmxJGvt > p6jxGBP8d9CeUZe7eOHujKmsBj4OYghX1e6VmYtwdGeaCEw4x5vnxO7GuX8ZkgxZ > XE/zSyuKB7GLAJUbg11VGUKoLVEP0kOprflj17DsNofXFNDrETL2OykDTNNIsJTP > c+RuTQE2xlD4EGCbnrYQ5A4tVl6ZtFao8LZXzcOmmAu9yR+6aYVMdEJnFe6iXTSY > M74pIBLZs3gq5gkhfm0x+sVadkXx/xuG3fslFxHYJIUWXS2aaB1pryrvDKdP1SF7 > F1RzJe6JtflzkkRu0DNBvZdkOztoX+jhldeoWXjZ7qcwKNFC7COvT4piEi+ivIXb > q3gvuadoGN4SL8M4sJJD2nbmKiDo74UuQ+HisY1xrAM6+ksf+/DxwVHOOX1Akpii > b77uguwPf6kxmScfI0VrL7LJr9y3vOI4GeQsAqq1ttUghi59u/dZ6qGjbA3xEnTz > a2w9kHGtwVUTIZaMT3v2nXveI87P+vHNhVDA9GyTmDvdqdVpTQp3nfCMzeCj1/L6 > 5fK78HJnQkdhMcITGVYmgcUAuegws2X1f0pw2/9jzpGWE39Sjjc= > =YYEe > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > >
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 00:56 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Hello Karsten, > > On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 20:05 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: > > Hello, > > > > bcc is a package (and executable) name that is already in use for > > another program in Debian. From https://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc: > > I'm aware of it. bcc is an already packaged binary package. It build from > source package: linux86 > > For this package, I've tried to be close to what upstream has already named. > So, for Debian, only the source package name is: bcc. [...] Please don't do this. When the same name is used for a binary package and for a source package that doesn't build that binary, it tends to result in mis-assigned bugs as BTS users don't consistently specify which they mean. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular. - Adlai Stevenson signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
On 11/30/2016 10:32 PM, Karsten Merker wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:56:14AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: >> On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 20:05 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: >>> bcc is a package (and executable) name that is already in use for >>> another program in Debian. From https://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc: >> >> I'm aware of it. bcc is an already packaged binary package. It >> build from source package: linux86 >> >> For this package, I've tried to be close to what upstream has already named. >> So, for Debian, only the source package name is: bcc. >> The binary packages are: >> >> rrs@learner:~/rrs-home/Community/Packaging/bcc (master)$ grep Package: >> debian/control >> Package: libbcc >> Package: libbcc-dev >> Package: python-bcc >> Package: bcc-tools >> Package: bcc-lua >> 2016-12-01 / 00:52:49 ♒♒♒ ☺ >> >> Does it make sense ? >> >> If you have suggestions, please mention them, because it'll be >> easier to make the name changes now. > > many thanks for the explanation, so from a technical point of > view there is no package naming conflict, although it is somewhat > counter-intuitive to end up with a source-package "bcc" and a > binary-package "bcc" where the latter isn't built from the former > but instead contains a completely different application. Maybe the new source package could be named bpf-bcc? That way there would be no confusion with respect to bin:bcc vs. src:bcc, and the source package name is still quite short, yet descriptive. Just a suggestion. Regards, Christian
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello Karsten, On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 20:05 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote: > Hello, > > bcc is a package (and executable) name that is already in use for > another program in Debian. From https://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc: I'm aware of it. bcc is an already packaged binary package. It build from source package: linux86 For this package, I've tried to be close to what upstream has already named. So, for Debian, only the source package name is: bcc. The binary packages are: rrs@learner:~/rrs-home/Community/Packaging/bcc (master)$ grep Package: debian/control Package: libbcc Package: libbcc-dev Package: python-bcc Package: bcc-tools Package: bcc-lua 2016-12-01 / 00:52:49 ♒♒♒ ☺ Does it make sense ? If you have suggestions, please mention them, because it'll be easier to make the name changes now. - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlg/J9YACgkQpjpYo/Lh dWmy1xAAoVz8XUiAoGzAb8lcGZsIFl0aZlXs+QnWSTny0RfsLkentFH4so3W3dE7 IFGRcv9I1dqtgZulx2QFppQayut92Ph8EfKcttlT62Mm0kMT/jgyGrrM6LAa7HY0 gxOsLtgjgXjnMZe57DAddWyX0HyJX3yElA3Cc3RBl1HM5ZRrXkaGbNVjw+4WPC/p KFGTbmvmvMxb3lITL5p184N0SgSG8ILci/iGD7knFY/uLKNr0Ygx3QJdBzfG94O8 bst3h5eZBRPFxzw9CoQJP4PHwLBSoOU9KX5VeQ2XogTjVHJYI6GZ5rJSvodicoJZ QoeOjkM9fcgLTy3YBEJpM1dGJfiseuOO2dFLPFRUIaMvBzgo/WJBWB2v9xtZQC25 kKLiqpSBrLnZYyrXQtQYFaDs7BGnoix8U/KWdZbifW6WW4Q2z5Jgc/pMrC23/Ecd zDz8pEo1dB4Zt/zfDjtqALr7EUVh1CBDEiMT+eDC49C0HJ4wpssCjMKcrk9KlLKx XyNS7GwmTQetGgrvRto7EuYRyX7JhHaxyKrpdZTZoKLUYPM6dImj68CGtfkq1Cwd 2DCNq338J2jt3RA6Tire83J8BHOT94hkuJ7tQr2MjJ9MjZOZ77IwJxrSH3tW8BEw 8l+JPSXRhBPWuZkGGG4UuYBFLkNrheRLfU1AR/aZ/fhYDEB91Us= =emD/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hello Sebastien, First of all, thanks for maintaining perf-tools-unstable. I use it many a times. I just completed the major chunk of bcc packaging. I intend to maintain it under collab-maint/ too. The binary file names are conflicting for bcc and perf-tools-unstable. I don't see a reason why one cannot co-install both the packages and use. But in its current form, it'll fail complaining file overwrites. Personally, I don't think the alternatives route may be of much use because apart from this 2 packages, I don't see any other package using these names. Also, IMO, the alternatives feature is usually useful for common tools like editor, pager etc. One option could be that we append the names of the binaries explicitly. Example, for bcc => execsnoop-bcc, perf-tools => execsnoop-perf What do you say ? Or if you have any suggestions, please do mention. Thanks, Ritesh On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 22:50 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Ritesh Raj Sarraf > > * Package name: bcc > Version : 0.2.0 > Upstream Author : IO Visor Project (https://github.com/iovisor) > * URL : https://github.com/iovisor/bcc > * License : Apache 2.0 > Programming Lang: C, Python > Description : Tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC) > > BPF Compiler Collection (BCC) is a toolkit for creating efficient > kernel tracing and manipulation programs > . > It makes use of extended BPF (Berkeley Package Filter) and provides tools > for BPF based Linux IO analysis, networking, monitoring and more > > This is a great tool to debug and instrument your kernel and > applications. It also is a a performance characterization and analysis > tool > > I have an interest in Debugging and Analysis and I intend to use and > maintain it under Debian. > > As with most of my packages, I intend to maintain it under collab-maint - -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEQCVDstmIVAB/Yn02pjpYo/LhdWkFAlg/EPQACgkQpjpYo/Lh dWle6xAAsRRfIO3oUvk6wN4NXanqQark//nvE5ezt2RPlx4SUYWA3WWJas1bbGA8 AdnJMKvqYD1wkBmuSRU5S+Ne6kXjat8GQCPiYBi1IS1mcUQXRT/MoKce3YmxJGvt p6jxGBP8d9CeUZe7eOHujKmsBj4OYghX1e6VmYtwdGeaCEw4x5vnxO7GuX8ZkgxZ XE/zSyuKB7GLAJUbg11VGUKoLVEP0kOprflj17DsNofXFNDrETL2OykDTNNIsJTP c+RuTQE2xlD4EGCbnrYQ5A4tVl6ZtFao8LZXzcOmmAu9yR+6aYVMdEJnFe6iXTSY M74pIBLZs3gq5gkhfm0x+sVadkXx/xuG3fslFxHYJIUWXS2aaB1pryrvDKdP1SF7 F1RzJe6JtflzkkRu0DNBvZdkOztoX+jhldeoWXjZ7qcwKNFC7COvT4piEi+ivIXb q3gvuadoGN4SL8M4sJJD2nbmKiDo74UuQ+HisY1xrAM6+ksf+/DxwVHOOX1Akpii b77uguwPf6kxmScfI0VrL7LJr9y3vOI4GeQsAqq1ttUghi59u/dZ6qGjbA3xEnTz a2w9kHGtwVUTIZaMT3v2nXveI87P+vHNhVDA9GyTmDvdqdVpTQp3nfCMzeCj1/L6 5fK78HJnQkdhMcITGVYmgcUAuegws2X1f0pw2/9jzpGWE39Sjjc= =YYEe -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Ritesh Raj Sarraf * Package name: bcc Version : 0.2.0 Upstream Author : IO Visor Project (https://github.com/iovisor) * URL : https://github.com/iovisor/bcc * License : Apache 2.0 Programming Lang: C, Python Description : Tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC) BPF Compiler Collection (BCC) is a toolkit for creating efficient kernel tracing and manipulation programs . It makes use of extended BPF (Berkeley Package Filter) and provides tools for BPF based Linux IO analysis, networking, monitoring and more This is a great tool to debug and instrument your kernel and applications. It also is a a performance characterization and analysis tool I have an interest in Debugging and Analysis and I intend to use and maintain it under Debian. As with most of my packages, I intend to maintain it under collab-maint