https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2084228
--- Comment #6 from John Kacur <jkacur(a)redhat.com> ---
Hi Jiri
We discussed it with the team, and there are a number of reasons that we wish
to keep it separate from the subpackages in kernel-tools
I won't list them all, but a few important ones.
1. kernel-tools is a group of tools related to each other, bpf, bpf libraries
and perf, while rtla is separate unrelated tool from the ones in kernel-tools
2. We which to maintain control of the rtla build separate from the kernel
version.
- It might not be necessary to provide a new build of rtla everytime the kernel
updates
- We might wish to provide rtla builds in-between kernel updates
- We will be backporting rtla to older kernels as well
So, I will be looking into a method of providing an acceptable Source0 for the
specfile
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2084228