On 19/10/2013 19:46, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Unfortunately all potential consumers look for it here currently: > http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=sys/sdt\.h
For good reason, it seems (see my other mail). > I'm not sure that a separate package of kfreebsd's sys/sdt.h would be of > use to anyone. If anything built with it might be incompatible with > Debian's toolchain anyway? Agreed. Unless SystemTap can be made ABI-compatible with DTrace, we need to make a choice about who's going to be the handler for DTRACE_PROBE calls :-( > If we use systemtap-sdt-dev's sys/sdt.h, do we at least get something > that might be functional? I guess we will get better integration with GDB at the expense of no integration with the kernel. Hopefully Mark can elaborate on this. > Would the proposed arch:all package lose the > dtrace binary and python dependency and ship just the header file? I wouldn't worry about that. If we go for SystemTap, the provider of <sys/sdt.h> wouldn't be Build-Essential anymore. -- Robert Millan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/52631205.5070...@debian.org
