On 2017-01-26 16:36:45 [+0100], Hector Oron wrote: > Hello, Hi, > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 02:37:21PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > diff --git a/debian/templates/control.source.in > > b/debian/templates/control.source.in > > index 08969a3da9d9..2a1fdf048823 100644 > > --- a/debian/templates/control.source.in > > +++ b/debian/templates/control.source.in > > @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ Standards-Version: 3.9.8 > > libperl-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>, > > libunwind8-dev [amd64 armel armhf arm64 i386] <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools > > !nopython>, > > python-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>, > > + libbabeltrace-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>, > > + libbabeltrace-ctf-dev <!stage1 !pkg.linux.notools !nopython>, > > Out of curiosity, > > The final patch that got merged has versioned depends on babeltrace >=1.5.0, > but > Jessie has 1.2.3. While trying to do a linux kernel backport, I have come up > with a question if we really need babeltrace >=1.5.0 or if 1.2.3 has the > needed > features. Do you happen to know?
You need babeltrace >= 1.5.0 for perf-data to work and that was the whole point of libbabeltrace. If you don't care about perf-data you can drop that babeltrace dependency (and not enable it later while building perf). I am happy that the next stable will bring working perf-data to Debian and I don't need it in backports (as it will introduce yet another library). > Note: In anycase, I am preparing a backport of babeltrace. > > Regards Sebastian
