On 21/10/13 23:59, Robert Millan wrote:
> But nobody mentioned systemtap-sdt-dev becoming Build-Essential.
>
> Is that the current plan?
Actually no, I think I misread. The full title of Bug #726248 is:
systemtap-sdt-dev: should be "Arch: all" so gcc and libc can B-D on it
In that case it must
On 21/10/2013 13:43, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
>> My suggestion, assuming everyone is okay with it, would be that you make
>> this package arch-all and add a:
>>
>> Replaces: kfreebsd-kernel-headers [kfreebsd-any]
>
> systemtap-sdt-dev doesn't replace *all* of kfreebsd-kernel-headers
> though? If
On 20/10/13 23:29, Robert Millan wrote:
> Well I think it doesn't hurt to let systemtap-sdt-dev provide sys/sdt.h
> at least for the time being. If later on (i.e. when we actually have
> DTrace) we find out that there are significant shortcomings, we can
> always revert that decision. In the meanti
On 20/10/2013 15:31, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> It would be good to know if it actually works and has any programs/users.
> I was only asking because if user space dtrace does work then it might
> be a good idea to make it understand the sys/sdt.h variant ELF notes.
> But if there are no programs/users
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:07:33AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> > But then programs that expect the header to be in the default place
> > wouldn't build. The whole idea is that programs that use sys/sdt.h
> > (and optionally the dtrace script) to use DTRACE_PROBE macros to
> > define SDT probe poi
Hi -
> [...]
> > 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.
In the normal Linux case, it's p
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
On 19/10/2013 18:06, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 05:00:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> If you want to avoid modifying programs that #include , why
>> not just install it in /usr/include/systemtap/sys/sdt.h ? Then you can
>> build them with -I/usr/include/systemtap so that you
Unfortunately all potential consumers look for it here currently:
http://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=sys/sdt\.h
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?
If we use sys
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 05:00:48PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> If you want to avoid modifying programs that #include , why
> not just install it in /usr/include/systemtap/sys/sdt.h ? Then you can
> build them with -I/usr/include/systemtap so that your version takes
> preference.
But then program
On 19/10/2013 02:57, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>> How compatible are the different implementations?
>
> They are meant to be source compatible so that if programs use
> DTRACE_PROBE macros they get build with SDT probes that systemtap, perf,
> gdb, etc. can use to introspect the program. High-level ove
On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 02:21 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On 18/10/2013 22:18, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> > It is certainly meant to be usable for software that wants to use SDT
> > probes (like glibc in this example) and software that wants to
> > read/inspect the SDT probes embedded in other s
On 18/10/2013 22:18, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
> It is certainly meant to be usable for software that wants to use SDT
> probes (like glibc in this example) and software that wants to
> read/inspect the SDT probes embedded in other software (like gdb in this
> example).
So the SDT probes provide
Hi,
resending also this.
-Timo
-Original Message-
From: Mark Wielaard
Sent: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:53:37 +0200
To: 726...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#726248: sdt.h conflict with kfreebsd-kernel-headers and
systemtap-sdt-dev
BTW. Wouldn't it be an option to put the conflicting h
Hi,
as 726...@bugs.debian.org only goes to the maintainer I'm resending this
with a wider Cc list.
-Timo
-Original Message-
From: Mark Wielaard
Sent: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 10:50:15 +0200
To: 726...@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#726248: sdt.h conflict with kfreebsd-kernel-header
15 matches
Mail list logo
