On Wed, 29 May 2024 at 23:27, Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 29 May 2024 19:00:59 +0100 Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> > wrote: > > On Sat, 2023-12-02 at 20:04 +0000, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > > > And so, it will be great if kernel team will like to package and > > > maintain it, if not, then I will be happy to do it. Please > > > reject this bug report if you think bpftool should not be done > > > separately and should live inside kernel source package. > > > > Since you are already maintaining libbpf I would be happy to hand > over > > bpftool to you. I will try to discuss this at this evening's team > > meeting. > > What about moving libbpf and bpftool to the kernel team area under > Salsa? That way more people can help, and it can use salsa-ci too
bpftool is already with the kernel team and being built from kernel source. And I anticipated that bpftool will move to github like upstream libbpf did and also mentioned that at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=948041#83. So, its upto the kernel team what they want to do with bpftool - 1. continue to build from kernel source and we can just close this bug 2. Split bpftool from kernel source and package it from github. The kernel team can maintain if they want to maintain an userspace package. If the kernel team does not want to maintain it, I can do that. About libbpf, I am confused with your message. What kind of help? Are you seeing that libbpf is not maintained properly? -- Regards Sudip
