Hi Axel, * Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org> [220415 17:53]: > Hi Chris, > [comparison between irqtop variants, my thanks to both of you]
> Anyway, IMHO we should: > > * Figure out how to get the util-linux implementation into Debian > proper. > > * irqtop from util-linux should in some way become the future default, > as its probably what the user usually expects. The ruby-written > irqtop is only a niche tool written for analysing the performace of > the ipt_NETFLOW.ko iptables plugin kernel module. (But seems to have > been useful elsewhere, too, as probably shown by the fact that > util-linux added a similar tool, which is probably less focussed on > that one job. :-) > > Regarding the ruby-written irqtop: > > * It is currently endangered to be removed from testing by the > horribly outdated ruby-curses (https://bugs.debian.org/958973) in > Debian which is also no more maintained; see > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=959115#10 and > https://bugs.debian.org/1009727 (Christian: I X-Debbugs-Cc'ed you on > #1009727 for that and because I know that you're also active in > Debian's Ruby packaging.) (I understand this is "temporarily fixed" now.) > * It has a higher popularity than I expected: > > https://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=irqtop&show_installed=on&show_vote=on&want_legend=on&beenhere=1 > > Because I as user and Linux admin prefer having choice and because the > two irqtop implementations seem to rather different, I really would > prefer to keep the ruby-written irqtop in Debian nevertheless at least > for now. Right. > My currently preferred variant (probably needs to be a bit more > polished) to go forward is: > > * Renaming the current irqtop package (and binary) to irqtop-nf. > > * Making a "irqtop" a transitional package which pulls in either > irqtop-nf or util-linux-extra , i.e. has a > > Depends: irqtop-nf | util-linux-extra > > in its control file. That way those who upgrade automatically get > the same implementation as before. But those who look at the package > see that there are two choices. > > * After the Bookworm release, the "irqtop" package should be removed > and provided by the util-linux-extra package, so that those who do > "apt install irqtop" actually get the more expected implementation > from util-linux. > > * I think we should also try to use /etc/alternatives/irqtop + > update-alternatives with irqtop from util-linux-extra having the > higher priority so that those who install both, get the probably > more expected util-linux-extra's implementation by default. > In case you agree, I'd upload an updated iptables-netflow source > package to Debian Experimental implementing these changes so we can > cross-installability and upgrade paths. I think I agree with almost everything here. There is a small caveat with regards to update-alternatives: 1) general question: do we get anything "actually useful" out of using u-a? Regardless of using u-a, (I think) util-linux would need to grow a versioned Conflicts/Replaces/Breaks on irqtop. 2) If we settle on update-alternatives, irqtop from util-linux really needs to be (and stay) in util-linux-extra. Some background: util-linux is Essential: yes. -> I want util-linux to be relatively small, contain only utilities that are useful on -all- installations, and it should be "postinst free". All of this pretty much already says util-linux-extra should have irqtop, and not util-linux. So, if we go with update-alternatives, which program names do you propose? irqtop-nf and irqtop-ul? There is some precedent to use "." instead of "-", but probably either are fine. Chris
