On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:22:08PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 14:00:17 +0100, Josh Boyer wrote:
> So are you not orphaning libunwind until that is merged into the
> upstream kernel?
To get the terminology right:
I am 'orphaning' it now. Later it may be 'obsolsted'.
If I should keep it formally maintaining I could. But factically it won't
change what I really do with the libunwind package. I have not fixed any
libunwind bug since 2009 and there is no one filed in RH BZ now; except
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=863781
rebase to 1.1 which I do not find meaningful for Fedora anymore, at least not
from my perspective.
I know about too many bugs in libunwind and I have found it easier to rather
reimplement the remaining few bits of elfutils so that elfutils can unwind on
its own.
> What about perf releases that support libunwind in older Fedora
> releases? Will you wait until all of those have been rebased?
As I said I have not fixed anything in libunwind for the past 3 years and also
I have even never found the non-ia64 part of libunwind meaningful before.
I can write my name into pkgdb ownership field back if you wish so.
> If perf winds up getting stuck relying on an orphaned library for some
> non-trivial amount of time,
AFAIK that is common in Fedora there are orphaned libraries in use for
a release or two.
> I'd rather just turn off libunwind support in perf now. It's only enabled
> in rawhide at the moment because it is a 3.7 feature. Before we bring 3.7
> back to f17-f18, we should probably decide.
That is more a question to Jiri Olsa, the author of perf libunwind client.
it will be configurable for both libunwind and elfutils unwinders,
and making default the one with better results or available
I should send upstream perf changes within this week
CCing Arnaldo
jirka