On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 09:51:04AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > 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 It has been superseded by 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.
Is there anything blocking any of the proposed solutions? The policy change has landed in the meantime. Chris
