On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:22:08PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:00:17 +0100, Josh Boyer wrote: > > So are you not orphaning libunwind until that is merged into the > > upstream kernel? > > To get the terminology right: > I am 'orphaning' it now. Later it may be 'obsolsted'. > > If I should keep it formally maintaining I could. But factically it won't > change what I really do with the libunwind package. I have not fixed any > libunwind bug since 2009 and there is no one filed in RH BZ now; except > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863781 > rebase to 1.1 which I do not find meaningful for Fedora anymore, at least not > from my perspective. > > I know about too many bugs in libunwind and I have found it easier to rather > reimplement the remaining few bits of elfutils so that elfutils can unwind on > its own. > > > > What about perf releases that support libunwind in older Fedora > > releases? Will you wait until all of those have been rebased? > > As I said I have not fixed anything in libunwind for the past 3 years and also > I have even never found the non-ia64 part of libunwind meaningful before. > > I can write my name into pkgdb ownership field back if you wish so. > > > > If perf winds up getting stuck relying on an orphaned library for some > > non-trivial amount of time, > > AFAIK that is common in Fedora there are orphaned libraries in use for > a release or two. > > > > I'd rather just turn off libunwind support in perf now. It's only enabled > > in rawhide at the moment because it is a 3.7 feature. Before we bring 3.7 > > back to f17-f18, we should probably decide. > > That is more a question to Jiri Olsa, the author of perf libunwind client.
it will be configurable for both libunwind and elfutils unwinders, and making default the one with better results or available I should send upstream perf changes within this week CCing Arnaldo jirka -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
