On Sat, 2024-06-01 at 21:13 +0100, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2024 at 14:24, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > > > 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. > > No problem. And even if bpftool is built as a new package, I think > Luca will like to keep bpftool with kernel team. Whoever maintains it, > as long as a release version is packaged and not a development > version, all is good. So, I will leave it with you and the kernel > team. > Please ping me if you need me to do anything. [...]
At today's meeting we agreed that bpftool should be split out, but should remain under the kernel team with you as an uploader. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
