-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Narrow libbcc dependency from llvm-dev to just libllvm #4997
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
It works with list libllvm, so no need to pull in the whole thing, which is 600MiB worth of packages.
@shunghsiyu, what exactly broke for you prior to #4921? |
The problem for me is that using bcc header files (packaged as debian/control does not have a separate package to host the bcc header files so I ended up placing such requirement on the main bcc package, which is admittedly not ideal. |
From a packaging point of view I'd much prefer we revert 6f11bf7 to keep the dependency at a minimum. That said I only know two users of @chantra what do you think? |
On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 11:02 PM Shung-Hsi Yu ***@***.***> wrote:
From a packaging point of view I'd much prefer we revert 6f11bf7
<6f11bf7>
to keep the dependency at a minimum.
For packaging, this should only be a build dependency right:
https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-relationships.html ?
The package itself has a pretty minimal footprint (26kb on Ubuntu per
https://packages.ubuntu.com/noble/llvm-dev). Probably this pulls more deps,
but only on the build machine.
Quickly checking the issue, I think moving llvm-dev to a “Build-Depends”
would solve the problem for machines where bcc gets installed.
Would that be a good enough middle ground?
That said I only know two users of bcc-devel: one is
… Sysinternals/ProcMon-for-Linux
<https://github.com/Sysinternals/ProcMon-for-Linux> mentioned above, and
the other is bpftrace/bpftrace <https://github.com/bpftrace/bpftrace>.
bpftrace already pulls llvm-devel anyway, while ProcMon-for-Linux doesn't
get packaged everywhere; so this is perhaps a bit of bikeshedding.
@chantra <https://github.com/chantra> what do you think?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#4997 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAF77DROQGITXS5HX7OYKTZDGGWXAVCNFSM6AAAAABHPIRQ7CVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDCMJZG4ZDONRQGA>
.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
If bcc-devel requires llvm-devel, I suppose the problem is because we pull llvm-config.h in bcc_module.h which is public? Moving llvm-config.h to private only headers should do the job. Can you list the public headers and we can work on moving this include out of the way. |
Not sure about Debian, but on the RPM side, even though The follow graph depicts the dependency chain:
|
I think that will work
The public headers I founds are:
So bpf_module.h should be the one that need modification. |
It works with list libllvm, so no need to pull in the whole thing, which is 600MiB worth of packages.