Hello Vasudev, On Tue, 2025-02-18 at 09:24 +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote: > > > > All binaries in bpfcc-tools were carefully chosen to have a suffix, > > making its origin obvious. The reason for this change was another > > set > > of instrumentation tools, being provided by the same upstream > > family, > > but from a different codebase. perf-tools-unstable. > > I think perf-tools-unstable is no longer actively developed; the last > commit seems 6 years back.
Yes. They aren't actively developed no more. That doesn't mean it isn't useful. It uses a different interface for instrumentation. Yes, but no more active development happens there. > Does it even make sense to keep it around? It has been superseded by > bpftools. So I would suggest dropping > perf-tools-unstable and rename binary back to their original names > and > then we can add conflicts to libbpf-tools > which provides the same binary (not all are present from bpfcc- > tools). I personally wouldn't prefer this route. For consistency with bpfcc, it could have been with the same naming scheme. On the other hand, if 2 packages can be made to co-exist, I'd not prefer to impose such a limitation. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
