Re: Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
On 11/30/2016 10:32 PM, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:56:14AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 20:05 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
>>> bcc is a package (and executable) name that is already in use for
>>> another program in Debian. From https://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc:
>>
>> I'm aware of it. bcc is an already packaged binary package. It
>> build from source package: linux86
>>
>> For this package, I've tried to be close to what upstream has already named.
>> So, for Debian, only the source package name is: bcc.
>> The binary packages are:
>>
>> rrs@learner:~/rrs-home/Community/Packaging/bcc (master)$ grep Package: debian/control
>> Package: libbcc
>> Package: libbcc-dev
>> Package: python-bcc
>> Package: bcc-tools
>> Package: bcc-lua
>> 2016-12-01 / 00:52:49 ♒♒♒ ☺
>>
>> Does it make sense ?
>>
>> If you have suggestions, please mention them, because it'll be
>> easier to make the name changes now.
>
> many thanks for the explanation, so from a technical point of
> view there is no package naming conflict, although it is somewhat
> counter-intuitive to end up with a source-package "bcc" and a
> binary-package "bcc" where the latter isn't built from the former
> but instead contains a completely different application.
Maybe the new source package could be named bpf-bcc? That way there
would be no confusion with respect to bin:bcc vs. src:bcc, and the
source package name is still quite short, yet descriptive. Just a
suggestion.
Regards,
Christian
Reply to: