On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:56:33 -0500
Josh Boyer wrote:
> So the level of stable I think would be needed is basically being able
> to ship a new libtraceevent.so and have it not break a powertop that
> was linked against a previous version. E.g. libtraceevent.so provided
> with the 3.15 kernel rele
On Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:02:18 +0900
Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> (also add Jiri to CC list, hi!)
Ug, I thought I added him, but looking at my email, I must have thought
I did but did not. :-/
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:03:22 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > The question h
On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Steve,
>
> (also add Jiri to CC list, hi!)
>
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:03:22 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> The question has recently come up in Fedora about packaging the
>> libtraceevent.so library. Currently there's 4 users o
Hi Steve,
(also add Jiri to CC list, hi!)
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 14:03:22 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> The question has recently come up in Fedora about packaging the
> libtraceevent.so library. Currently there's 4 users of it:
>
> 1) perf
> 2) trace-cmd
> 3) powertop
> 4) rasdaemon
On 12/2/2013 11:03 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
Hi all!
The question has recently come up in Fedora about packaging the
libtraceevent.so library. Currently there's 4 users of it:
1) perf
2) trace-cmd
3) powertop
4) rasdaemon
But each have their own copy of the code.
Both perf and trace-c
Hi all!
The question has recently come up in Fedora about packaging the
libtraceevent.so library. Currently there's 4 users of it:
1) perf
2) trace-cmd
3) powertop
4) rasdaemon
But each have their own copy of the code.
Both perf and trace-cmd are the major developers of the package, and I
w
6 matches
Mail list logo
