Hi Axel, zhenwei, * Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org> [220414 15:08]: > Since you're asking, I allow myself to cite my reply to your inquiry > with me back then (June 2021):
Thanks! > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Hmmm, do they do the same? Can I test that irqtop from util-linux > somewhere? > > Since people seem to expect the irqtop tool from util-linux, I see > multiple options: > > 1) If the irqtop from util-linux is clearly superior: Drop building > the irqtop package from src:iptables-netflow and let util-linux > generate a transitional package. (Versions should be no problem > with 2.6 < 2.36.) > > I more or less built that binary package, because that tool was in > the upstream sources and no such feature was present in Debian so > far and I didn't want to pull in ruby just for a DKMS kernel module. > > 2) If none of them is clearly superior and they have different feature > sets, using the alternatives system might be an option. > > Since I expect both to be just TUI tools without having an API > being used by other tools, different commandline options should not > be an issue here. > > 3) Rename one of them, e.g. to irqtop-nf or irqtop-ul or so. (Renaming > both of them will be needed for variant 2 anyways.) > > In case you intend to add lsirq for bullseye, you could also add > irqtop as irqtop-ul or so (i.e. variant 3b), too. That shouldn't cause > any disturbance IMHO. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > As far as I can see, I didn't get a reply back from you on these > suggestions of mine. Maybe my mail fell through the cracks. But I > think we should take the discussion up again, probably in this bug > report. Right. I think I forgot to reply back then - sorry. Experimental should have util-linux-extra 2.38-4+exp1 very soon, with irqtop installed. Obviously this can only be used for testing. Personally I think we should have only one irqtop - from my point of view it does not matter which one. Maybe the new version is superior. In any case we should not confuse our users. zhenwei, do you have input on the differences between the existing irqtop and the new irqtop from util-linux? > Another point which comes to my mind now is that it might make sense > to rename the current irqtop package to irqtop-nf (or irqtop-ruby) > just to make clear that it does not contain the irqtop tool from > util-linux. Might be an idea. But lets see what the differences are, first. Thanks, Chris
