On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:31:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Nonsense, a distro, if it truly worried about this, could create two > packages already, there's no need to expose configuration options in the > binary name itself and burden users with the separation. I sometimes > switch the UI frontend of perf depending on the workflow and the terminal, > it would be highly annoying if the binary name was changed to expose > configuration options.
Which means you'd have to use a different tool name or have incompatible packages, both of which aren't desirable. > The thing is, you strongly objected to perf itself when we offered it up > for an upstream merge and I'm not surprised you still don't like it. I strongly objected to adding it to the kernel tree, and I still stand to that opinion because it makes using perf much more painful than it needs to be. I never disliked perf itself and use it frequently now that I can bypass some of the pains by just using an older distro package. But I'd much rather get this back to technical discussions than personal attacks.. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
