[SRU][K][PATCH 0/1] linux-tools-common should provide bpftool

[Stefan Bader]

On 08.11.22 16:42, Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2022 at 03:34:51PM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 07.11.22 11:34, Andrea Righi wrote:
>>> [Impact]
>>>
>>> In Debian, 'bpftool' is provided as a separate binary package.
>>>
>>> There are other packages in the archive (i.e., bpfcc,
>>> lava-dispatcher-host) which reference this package.
>>>
>>> Rather than patching each package in Ubuntu to know the different Ubuntu
>>> name for the package (linux-tools-common), we should make
>>> linux-tools-common provide bpftool.
>>>
>>
>> It is possible I am totally overthinking this ... I just have this fuzzy
>> memory of linux-tools-common needing one linux-tools-<flavour> to be of use.
>> And the other not so clear belief that having the provides in common will
>> add that to the installation if something depends on bpftool. The command
>> itself is in common, so that is ok.
>> Just tried and running bpftool with just linux-tools-common installed gives
>> you somewhat reasonable advice as to what you might be missing. If that is
>> ok...
> 
> Hm.. I just checked and you are absolutely right.
> 
> It seems that linux-tools-common provides bpftool in /usr/sbin/bpftool,
> but this is just a wrapper and the actual bpftool is provided by
> linux-tools-<flavour>, that is stored in
> /usr/lib/linux-tools/<flavour>/bpftool (called by the wrapper in
> /usr/sbin).
> 
> I think we need to install also the real bpftool, the advice might be
> not enough, since it could be hidden if it's not reported properly on
> the console (and even in this case it sounds really bad to provide only
> a "fake" bpftool).
> 
> So, I guess what needs to provide bpftool is actually
> linux-tools-<flavour>.
> 
> Do you see any problem with this? If not I'll NAK this patch and send a
> new one.

That would be an option I was wondering. But I am not really sure what will 
happen then. We will then have the provides on multiple packages. The 
linux-tools-<flavour> seems to be a meta which points to 
linux-tools-<abi-version>-<flavour>. But I think the meta would be the right 
place. I would be hoping that when you try to install something then which wants 
bpftool you will get a message telling you about the options. Maybe this can be 
tested by trying in a ppa since I am often not sure what the actual reaction of 
the system will be.

-Stefan

> 
> Thanks,
> -Andrea
> 
>>
>> -Stefan
>>
>>> [Fix]
>>>
>>> Add 'Provides: bpftool' to linux-tools-common.
>>>
>>> [Test case]
>>>
>>> Install any package from the archive that requires bpftool.
>>>
>>> [Regression potential]
>>>
>>> We could introduce potential package dependency regressions with this
>>> change, however we are not introducing additional dependencies and
>>> the fix allows to avoid patching a lot of other packages from the
>>> archives (potentially introducing more regressions).
>>>
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/attachments/20221108/1af1251c/attachment.sig>