Re: [RFC] tools lib traceevent: How to do library versioning being in the Linux kernel source?

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo]

Em Thu, Jan 02, 2020 at 12:20:04PM -0500, Steven Rostedt escreveu:
> This is a problem with living in the Linux source tree as tags and
> branches in Linus's tree are for only the Linux kernel source itself.
> This may work fine for perf, as it's not a library and there's not

[acme@quaco perf]$ git log --oneline tools/lib/perf
6364e2891a4c libperf: Add man pages
19e0154effb4 libperf: Move to tools/lib/perf
[acme@quaco perf]$

[acme@quaco perf]$ git log --follow --oneline tools/lib/perf/Makefile
6364e2891a4c libperf: Add man pages
19e0154effb4 libperf: Move to tools/lib/perf
395e62cde10d libperf: Link static tests with libapi.a
7728fa0cfaeb libperf: Adopt perf_mmap__consume() function from tools/perf
fb4bf51fcc15 libperf: Add libperf dependency for tests targets
d80a5540bccb libperf: Link libapi.a in libperf.so
227cb129858a libperf: Add missing event.h file to install rule
b81d39c7a1ef (tag: perf-core-for-mingo-5.4-20190820) libperf: Fix arch include paths
6a94b52a71b7 libperf: Add tests support
0a64d7091efd libperf: Add install targets
47f9bccc79cb libperf: Add build version support
314350491810 libperf: Make libperf.a part of the perf build
[acme@quaco perf]$

libperf adopted the versioning and packaging practices introduced by
tools/lib/bpf, perhaps you could do the same for tools/lib/traceevent
and then we would have a standard for these cases?

The problem of having libperf, libbpf in distros is already being
tackled for quite a while, would be interesting to follow what has
happened in that area as well, Jiri knows more about this, Jiri?

- Arnaldo