From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Sep 26 05:42:30 2021 Received: (at 50756) by debbugs.gnu.org; 26 Sep 2021 09:42:31 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:35911 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mUQg2-0003zM-M7 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 05:42:30 -0400 Received: from h87-96-130-155.cust.a3fiber.se ([87.96.130.155]:44476 helo=mail.yoctocell.xyz) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1mUQg1-0003z8-2y for 50756@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 26 Sep 2021 05:42:30 -0400 From: Xinglu Chen DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yoctocell.xyz; s=mail; t=1632649339; bh=GmVaEK+iWc148XAa2s0JWVURVsPMOTPXK7F+Hda4y20=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date; b=pU3jt7a5MfrtRXlnI/PjaydhPBLZpuEJclrCnXy0bQtd9DG69dmyNNiG3O/XlgyPf 0593S3aS/qYrpQh44wc/Fxl8cN4DxSarZvxzwDvdXfGWcQbzX4k0IxPSqU10leKCGJ 3+SwRzsIzx807LaeG+0hcsHbZFpyMeoSetNfeq80= To: Olivier Dion , 50756@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: [bug#50756] [PATCH] gnu: Add lttng-tools. In-Reply-To: <87tuia2ehj.fsf@laura> References: <20210923124004.3164-1-olivier.dion@polymtl.ca> <87mto2jbkl.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> <87tuia2ehj.fsf@laura> Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2021 11:42:18 +0200 Message-ID: <875yunk70l.fsf@yoctocell.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Fri, Sep 24 2021, Olivier Dion via Guix-patches via wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, Xinglu Chen wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 23 2021, Olivier Dion via Guix-patches via wrote: > >>> +(define-public lttng-tools >>> + (package >>> + (name "lttng-to [...] Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: yoctocell.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 0.0 PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP RDNS_DYNAMIC with FP steps X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 50756 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 2.9 (++) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Fri, Sep 24 2021, Olivier Dion via Guix-patches via wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, Xinglu Chen wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 23 2021, Olivier Dion via Guix-patches via wrote: > >>> +(define-public lttng-tools >>> + (package >>> + (name "lttng-to [...] Content analysis details: (2.9 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 2.0 PDS_OTHER_BAD_TLD Untrustworthy TLDs [URI: yoctocell.xyz (xyz)] 0.0 SPF_HELO_NONE SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record 0.5 FROM_SUSPICIOUS_NTLD From abused NTLD 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS 1.0 BULK_RE_SUSP_NTLD Precedence bulk and RE: from a suspicious TLD -1.0 MAILING_LIST_MULTI Multiple indicators imply a widely-seen list manager 0.0 PDS_RDNS_DYNAMIC_FP RDNS_DYNAMIC with FP steps --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 24 2021, Olivier Dion via Guix-patches via wrote: > On Fri, 24 Sep 2021, Xinglu Chen wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 23 2021, Olivier Dion via Guix-patches via wrote: > >>> +(define-public lttng-tools >>> + (package >>> + (name "lttng-tools") >>> + (version "2.12.5") >> >> Version 2.13 is available; any reason for not using it? > > Would require to bump version of lttng-ust also I think. I prefer to do = all of this > in another patch. Ah, OK. >>> + (arguments >>> + `(#:tests? #f >>> + #:parallel-tests? #f >> >> There is no need to set #:parallel-tests? if #:tests? is set to #f. > > During my testing, I noticed that test in parallel are not working > because of how the lttng-daemon works. So I disable the parallel option > in order to not forget it when testing will work in the future. I > should probably add a comment to explain the rationale here. > >>> + (propagated-inputs >>> + `(("libkmod" ,kmod) >>> + ("modprobe" ,module-init-tools))) >> >> Any reason for the labels not being the same as the package? > > I follow the naming convention in the description of the project's README > so it's easier to map the dependencies described by it to Guix's > packages. I can change this, but I find it more clear that way. The name of the label is usually the same as the package, so I would change them to =E2=80=9Ckmod=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Cmodule-init-tools=E2=80= =9D respectively. >> >>> + (native-inputs >>> + `(("pkg-config" ,pkg-config) >>> + ("perl" ,perl) >>> + ("libpfm4" ,libpfm4) >>> + ("python" ,python-3) >> >> While running the configure script, I get >> >> configure: You may configure with --enable-python-bindings if you want= Python bindings. >> >> So you would have to pass the =E2=80=98--enable-python-bindings=E2=80=99= flag, and >> Python would be needed during runtime as well. > > Does it tho? Bindings can be generated at build time. While you would > require python-3 at runtime to use the bindings, you don't require > python-3 to use the other tools of the project. I don't mind adding it > to the inputs, I'm just asking. True, the user can install always install Python in their profile themselves. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJJBAEBCAAzFiEEAVhh4yyK5+SEykIzrPUJmaL7XHkFAmFQQHoVHHB1YmxpY0B5 b2N0b2NlbGwueHl6AAoJEKz1CZmi+1x5ag4P/2fBRNy73tVNjITBIYfTlhENNzI6 zf4dz7841A99MBUqsrpb+SDN674SAmi4bUd8+xtsSZTSDIirUqY/MWLT+EgXE5GL r1qDO6DrEgpd8MI/YxKY9EOYVQ7wi+U+RzndroR8CXoIiFbr0q4DHXsJAwNKW8i8 XX5PP++2mbESD0uOydNlvzPvgibHokikwoZXZZLazq03l3seLAOv3HvL+E1zK4fP CqnLTg2XDr9teXA8m/JMgAETcbuZI/Fn52SpOvUH8B2x2QSASPYrS1c7dR2PWd2W fQvRM/MNuG1hjOnuBeTkczSMCpNee/zd4ubXnDV9nftS+/ig0dUwQ8bC/a+uJ3+S hfCdJt4Wh4zZpvfS3xD7ThZtRF5fMrjOFQUh/FBYk/ox2VNXpHarU06DfTuobDPU YWIEQtvTH7jZ1HTTpZfEi0Rcl2e2qgIvORyL4it9g5EXwg7UMkPG0V96gSo5XeYu R7JRjIaE3ZGTy9x+mPDo+MpLmV6wYPZDZ3IV0QJFFKF2L7XDn/ejIavTDACyZl80 LWlwGlRbI7vWgj/9ZsuVIGxTm8+wwcT0X9EvWhs+np6+M7DCZR1b/KoLQpKFT96J 1aEBeLVJbkuraPesMGJEAYDg1TCv4NIN9+0IIHN2JZZMCGEJTNhnKu8okVVzeEm1 ifMoFZUT1OEo0tWb =YSqJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--