From: Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>, Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>,
Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Bpftool mirror now available
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 12:35:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ac3f95ed-bead-e8ea-b477-edcbd809452c@isovalent.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAEf4Bzbu4wc9anr19yG1AtFEcnxFsBrznynkrVZajQT1x_o6cA@mail.gmail.com>
2022-01-19 22:25 UTC-0800 ~ Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 6:47 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@isovalent.com> wrote:
[...]
>> 2. Because it is easier to compile and ship, this mirror should
>> hopefully simplify bpftool packaging for distributions.
>
> Right, I hope disto packagers will be quick to adopt the new mirror
> repo for packaging bpftool. Let's figure out bpftool versioning schema
> as a next step. Given bpftool heavily relies on libbpf and isn't
> really coupled to kernel versions, it makes sense for bpftool to
> reflect libbpf version rather than kernel's. WDYT?
Personally, I don't mind finding another scheme, as long as we keep it
consistent between the reference sources in the kernel repo and the mirror.
I also agree that it would make sense to align it to libbpf, but that
would mean going backward on the numbers (current version is 5.16.0,
libbpf's is 0.7.0) and this will mess up with every script trying to
compare versions. We could maybe add a prefix to indicate that the
scheme has changed ('l_0.7.0), but similarly, it would break a good
number of tools that expect semantic versioning, I don't think this is
any better.
The other alternative I see would be to pick a different major version
number and arbitrarily declare that bpftool's version is aligned on
libbpf's, but with a difference of 6 for the version number. So we would
start at 6.7.0 and reach 7.0.0 when libbpf 1.0.0 is released. This is
not ideal, but we would keep some consistency, and we can always add the
version of libbpf used for the build to "bpftool version"'s output. How
would you feel about it? Did you have something else in mind?
Quentin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-20 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-19 14:47 Bpftool mirror now available Quentin Monnet
2022-01-20 6:25 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-01-20 12:35 ` Quentin Monnet [this message]
2022-01-20 19:07 ` Andrii Nakryiko
2022-01-24 10:37 ` Quentin Monnet
2022-01-20 14:19 ` Dave Thaler
2022-01-24 12:13 ` Quentin Monnet
2022-01-25 3:39 ` Dave Thaler
2022-01-25 21:42 ` Daniel Borkmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ac3f95ed-bead-e8ea-b477-edcbd809452c@isovalent.com \
--to=quentin@isovalent.com \
--cc=andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=dthaler@microsoft.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).