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. > > > > > What about moving libbpf and bpftool to the kernel team area under > > > > Salsa? That way more people can help, and it can use salsa-ci too > > > > > > bpftool is already with the kernel team and being built from kernel > > > source. And I anticipated that bpftool will move to github like > > > upstream libbpf did and also mentioned that at > > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=948041#83. So, its > > > upto the kernel team what they want to do with bpftool - > > > 1. continue to build from kernel source and we can just close this bug > > > 2. Split bpftool from kernel source and package it from github. The > > > kernel team can maintain if they want to maintain an userspace > > > package. If the kernel team does not want to maintain it, I can do > > > that. > > > > > > About libbpf, I am confused with your message. What kind of help? Are > > > you seeing that libbpf is not maintained properly? > > > > I'm not talking about the upstream source, but about the debian > > repository: given both of these are inextricably tied to the kernel, I > > think it would be good to have the downstream repositories in salsa, > > in the kernel-team area - and of course, still including yourself as > > repo owner. The kernel team is not only for the kernel package, but > > also other kernel-adjacent packages like ethtool, iproute2, firmware, > > iw, etc: https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team > > Ah, I hadn't noticed that the libbpf packaging was on Github. > > I agree with Luca that it would be preferable to have these on Salsa > but I don't have a strong opinion on whether they should be in the > kernel-team group. Absolutely. I dont remember why some of my packages (from 2019 - 2020) are in github. But I will definitely move them to salsa. About moving it under kernel team, I think I will say "no" to that unless Luca can give some very good reasons about what is missing now that will change if ts moved under kernel team. -- Regards Sudip
