On Thu, 2024-05-30 at 14:00 +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2024 at 00:17, Sudip Mukherjee > <sudipm.mukher...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.
Unfortunately we didn't have time for it this time. > > > 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? > > I'm not talking about the upstream source, but about the debian > repository: given both of these are inextricably tied to the kernel, I > think it would be good to have the downstream repositories in salsa, > in the kernel-team area - and of course, still including yourself as > repo owner. The kernel team is not only for the kernel package, but > also other kernel-adjacent packages like ethtool, iproute2, firmware, > iw, etc: https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team Ah, I hadn't noticed that the libbpf packaging was on Github. I agree with Luca that it would be preferable to have these on Salsa but I don't have a strong opinion on whether they should be in the kernel-team group. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings It is easier to write an incorrect program than to understand a correct one.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
