Bug#846366: ITP: bcc -- Command line tools for BPF Compiler Collection (BCC)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 23:18 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> The binary file names are conflicting for bcc and perf-tools-unstable. I don't
> see a reason why one cannot co-install both the packages and use. But in its
> current form, it'll fail complaining file overwrites.
>
> Personally, I don't think the alternatives route may be of much use because
> apart from this 2 packages, I don't see any other package using these names.
> Also, IMO, the alternatives feature is usually useful for common tools like
> editor, pager etc.
>
> One option could be that we append the names of the binaries explicitly.
> Example, for bcc => execsnoop-bcc, perf-tools => execsnoop-perf
>
> What do you say ? Or if you have any suggestions, please do mention.
I think we should stick with this proposal of appending the type along with the
name.
1. On autocompletions, it'd autocomplete to "execsnoop-", which is an invalid
name either way. This will expect the user to pay attention and fire the correct
command.
2. This approach is explicit, visible and allows for co-existence for both.
So, unless there is a concern, I'd want to target this change for the next
upload of both the tools. The bpfcc follow-up upload is pending because of a
FTBFS bug. And on the perf-tools side, there haven't been any substantial
changes lately, warranting an upload.
But whatever triggers the upload, we'll make this change included ?
- --
Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs
Debian - The Universal Operating System
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=zgA+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: