Bug#1030657: libbpfcc-dev: Why is the list of build architectures limited?
Source: bpfcc Version: 0.26.0+ds-1 Followup-For: Bug #1030657 Hi, looking at [1], the list of architectures is still very limited. Can we at least enable bpfcc on all architectures in Debian Ports? Since Debian Ports is not an officially supported distribution, there shouldn't be any concerns with regressions and bugs once they arise. If the lack of personal time to be able to spend on this package, I would suggest creating a bug report to request for help (RFH). Thanks, Adrian > [1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=bpfcc=sid -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer `. `' Physicist `-GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Bug#1030657: libbpfcc-dev: Why is the list of build architectures limited?
On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 14:35 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Will it be hard to test if the result work during build and reject > the > architecure based on build failure instead of a fixed list of > architectures. Getting it to build is one part, making it behave reliably is comes immediate next. Then, there's also the inclusion/exclusion every release, based on build status. I chose to stick with the fixed architecture list because: * Real life is progressing, as in I now have lesser volunteer time * I don't want to commit when I know I don't have a lot of time/experience on the subject. All that said, Debian is about fun. And Experimental is for this very same purpose. I will make an upload to Experimental soon, as I expressed the intent earlier. And let it soak there for a couple of (upstream) release cycles. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1030657: libbpfcc-dev: Why is the list of build architectures limited?
Hello! The list of supported architectures is here: https://github.com/libbpf/libbpf/blob/master/src/bpf_tracing.h Per my experience building opensnitch packages for i386, amd64, armhf and arm64, gobpf (which uses libpfcc-dev) works fine on those platforms. eBPF modules loads and works fine. On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 12:56, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote: > Hello Petter > > On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 08:20 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > Because of issues with the opensnitch build and test, I noticed the > > Debian buildds only build bpfcc on a limited set of architectures. > > Is > > it written down somewhere why so few of the Debian architectures are > > listed as working with bpfcc? Any chance to increase the list to all > > supported Debian architectures? > > I don't recollect if the list of supported architecture is mentioned > somewhere, but I restricted the build to some of the 64 Bit > architectures only, because of the lack of upstream support. > > I personally enabled bpfcc on some extra (64 bit) architectures back > then but learnt that the upstream support is only focused on x86. > Things may have changed lately as I am not on top of the bpfcc > development upstream. > > > I would love to extend the architecture support. If you already have > changes that enable additional architectures, an MR will be > appreciated. Preferably, first we should let it soak/reside, for 1-2 > upstream releases, under Debian Experimental. > > -- > Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs > Debian - The Universal Operating System > -- Clave Pública: gpg --keyserver pgp.rediris.es --recv-keys BCF6BE9C
Bug#1030657: libbpfcc-dev: Why is the list of build architectures limited?
[Ritesh Raj Sarraf] > By 'upstream support', I meant based on random conversations I had with > them years ago. Aha. I guess it is limited to the set of architectures the developers have access to and are interested in. > So, for curiosity, I did a quick check on where packaging in general > stands. As Debian have more build architectures that every other Linux distribution, it is no surprise that the list of architectures is short for the other distributors. Will it be hard to test if the result work during build and reject the architecure based on build failure instead of a fixed list of architectures. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
Bug#1030657: libbpfcc-dev: Why is the list of build architectures limited?
On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 13:22 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > I don't recollect if the list of supported architecture is > > mentioned > > somewhere, but I restricted the build to some of the 64 Bit > > architectures only, because of the lack of upstream support. > > OK. What do 'upstream support' mean here, and did they list > supported > platforms anywhere? By 'upstream support', I meant based on random conversations I had with them years ago. So, for curiosity, I did a quick check on where packaging in general stands. We have: * https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1880777 * https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/bcc/blob/rawhide/f/bcc.spec * https://github.com/iovisor/bcc/issues/2678 * https://repo.iovisor.org/yum/ * https://repo.iovisor.org/apt/ -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1030657: libbpfcc-dev: Why is the list of build architectures limited?
[Ritesh Raj Sarraf] > I don't recollect if the list of supported architecture is mentioned > somewhere, but I restricted the build to some of the 64 Bit > architectures only, because of the lack of upstream support. OK. What do 'upstream support' mean here, and did they list supported platforms anywhere? > I personally enabled bpfcc on some extra (64 bit) architectures back > then but learnt that the upstream support is only focused on x86. > Things may have changed lately as I am not on top of the bpfcc > development upstream. I am not either. I was just curious why the arch list was so limited, when I discovered it while helping out with opensnitch. > I would love to extend the architecture support. If you already have > changes that enable additional architectures, an MR will be > appreciated. Preferably, first we should let it soak/reside, for 1-2 > upstream releases, under Debian Experimental. I do not plan to send patches for extending it until I understand the consequences, but agree that the experimental path seem like a sensible one. I would be nice if eBPF and opensnitch was available on all supported architectures, but it might not be worth the effort. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
Bug#1030657: libbpfcc-dev: Why is the list of build architectures limited?
Hello Petter On Mon, 2023-02-06 at 08:20 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > Because of issues with the opensnitch build and test, I noticed the > Debian buildds only build bpfcc on a limited set of architectures. > Is > it written down somewhere why so few of the Debian architectures are > listed as working with bpfcc? Any chance to increase the list to all > supported Debian architectures? I don't recollect if the list of supported architecture is mentioned somewhere, but I restricted the build to some of the 64 Bit architectures only, because of the lack of upstream support. I personally enabled bpfcc on some extra (64 bit) architectures back then but learnt that the upstream support is only focused on x86. Things may have changed lately as I am not on top of the bpfcc development upstream. I would love to extend the architecture support. If you already have changes that enable additional architectures, an MR will be appreciated. Preferably, first we should let it soak/reside, for 1-2 upstream releases, under Debian Experimental. -- Ritesh Raj Sarraf | http://people.debian.org/~rrs Debian - The Universal Operating System signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#1030657: libbpfcc-dev: Why is the list of build architectures limited?
Package: libbpfcc-dev Version: 0.25.0+ds-2 Severity: wishlist Dear maintainer of libbpfcc-dev, Because of issues with the opensnitch build and test, I noticed the Debian buildds only build bpfcc on a limited set of architectures. Is it written down somewhere why so few of the Debian architectures are listed as working with bpfcc? Any chance to increase the list to all supported Debian architectures? -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen
