Add install target to libbpf-tools

[olsajiri]

We plan to put those tools in separate rpm, so we need a way to install them.

Adding install target with standard DESTDIR and prefix make variables.

[olsajiri]

We'd like to have these tools available in package due to
their small dependencies.

Also I'd like to start the discussion about packaging these
tools. I made test fedora rpm that looks like:

    $ rpm -ql bcc-libbpf-tools
    /usr/bin/biolatency
    /usr/bin/biopattern
    /usr/bin/biosnoop
    /usr/bin/biostacks
    /usr/bin/bitesize
    /usr/bin/cpudist
    /usr/bin/drsnoop
    /usr/bin/execsnoop
    /usr/bin/filelife
    /usr/bin/hardirqs
    /usr/bin/llcstat
    /usr/bin/numamove
    /usr/bin/opensnoop
    /usr/bin/readahead
    /usr/bin/runqlat
    /usr/bin/runqlen
    /usr/bin/runqslower
    /usr/bin/softirqs
    /usr/bin/syscount
    /usr/bin/tcpconnect
    /usr/bin/tcpconnlat
    /usr/bin/vfsstat
    /usr/bin/xfsslower
    /usr/lib/.build-id
    /usr/lib/.build-id/0c
    ...

Would you guys agree or propose another location?

thanks,
jirka

[anakryiko]

Changes look good to me. As for the location, I don't have much of an opinion, tbh :)

[yonghong-song]

[buildbot, test this please]

[vt-alt]

@olsajiri For ALT Linux I wanted to create a package named libbpf-tools with binaries installed into /usr/bin each tool with bpf- prefix. What do you think?

Example temporary rpm build (not yet committed to the repository): http://git.altlinux.org/tasks/265490/build/400/x86_64/rpms/libbpf-tools-0.18.0-alt2.x86_64.rpm

Why not 'bcc-prefix for a package name? I think these tools aren't bcc specific, but libbpf specific,. they just located inbcc` source tree (like gdb is located in binutils tree, but it's a different thing).

About binaries names, I thought, that no prefix would be confusing since there is already execsnoop in bcc-tools (different tool!), execsnoop in perf-tools, and execsnoop in bpftrace.

[anakryiko]

@olsajiri, @vt-alt, @mika A friendly ping. All of you expressed desire to package libbpf-tools. It would be great if you managed to do it in a consistent manner. :)

[vt-alt]

JFYI. I already packaged it for ALT like this: https://altlinux.pkgs.org/sisyphus/classic-x86_64/libbpf-tools-0.18.0-alt2.x86_64.rpm.html (Changelog date does not reflect that package is committed 13 Feb.)

[mika]

Hi! (Cc-ing Vasudev, we're talking about #3263 :)) * Andrii Nakryiko [Sun Mar 07, 2021 at 09:54:51PM -0800]:

@olsajiri, @vt-alt, @mika A friendly ping. All of you expressed desire to package libbpf-tools. It would be great if you managed to do it in a consistent manner. :)

Thanks for the friendly ping! Vasudev thankfully showed up at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=978727#20 and seems to be working on libbpf-tools in Debian, so including him in the loop. :) regards -mika-

[mika]

Also adding Ritesh who is also my co-maintainer of bcc package in Debian to the loop. Michael Prokop ***@***.***> writes:

Hi! (Cc-ing Vasudev, we're talking about #3263 :)) * Andrii Nakryiko [Sun Mar 07, 2021 at 09:54:51PM -0800]: > @olsajiri, @vt-alt, @mika A friendly ping. All of you expressed > desire to package libbpf-tools. It would be great if you managed > to do it in a consistent manner. :) Thanks for the friendly ping! Vasudev thankfully showed up at https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=978727#20 and seems to be working on libbpf-tools in Debian, so including him in the loop. :)

Thanks for looping me in. If every other distro has agreed on to using bpf- prefix to the tool name I think we can do the same in Debian. PS: As of now tools shipped by bcc are named bpfcc-tools and all tools have -bpfcc suffix (bcc name was taken already by some unrelated package). Same set of tools provided by bpftrace has suffix .bt and -perf suffix for perf-tools-unstable package. Cheers, Vasudev

[anakryiko]

Cheers, Vasudev

Super confusing seeing replies from two people under the same account... Do you guys share the same computer? :)

Regarding the rest, I think bpf- prefix makes sense and it would be great for all distros to stick to the same convention. I hope everyone else will agree as well. Thanks!

[olsajiri]

hi,
sorry for late reply

I did not push the package yet for fedora/rhel, because I was waiting for new bcc release,
that would contain this patch, so I dont need to patch it ;-)

@olsajiri For ALT Linux I wanted to create a package named libbpf-tools with binaries installed into /usr/bin each tool with bpf- prefix. What do you think?

Example temporary rpm build (not yet committed to the repository): http://git.altlinux.org/tasks/265490/build/400/x86_64/rpms/libbpf-tools-0.18.0-alt2.x86_64.rpm

Why not 'bcc-prefix for a package name? I think these tools aren't bcc specific, but libbpf specific,. they just located inbcc` source tree (like gdb is located in binutils tree, but it's a different thing).

assuming libbpf will not come up with its own tools ;-) @anakryiko ?

makes sense, I'll check with bcc maintainer, but I think we could go with libbpf-tools

About binaries names, I thought, that no prefix would be confusing since there is already execsnoop in bcc-tools (different tool!), execsnoop in perf-tools, and execsnoop in bpftrace.

sounds good to me.. also easy for user to type bpf- and tab completion will do the job

thanks,
jirka

[anakryiko]

assuming libbpf will not come up with its own tools ;-) @anakryiko ?

no, of course.

About binaries names, I thought, that no prefix would be confusing since there is already execsnoop in bcc-tools (different tool!), execsnoop in perf-tools, and execsnoop in bpftrace.

sounds good to me.. also easy for user to type bpf- and tab completion will do the job

yep, sounds like a pretty nice convenience

[anakryiko]

@mika, @vt-alt as packagers, I was wondering what you thought about #3889 ? This should allow to package libbpf-tools on much bigger variety of distros and kernels, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to you at all. Would love to hear comments, thanks!

[mika]

Hi, * Andrii Nakryiko [Mon Mar 28, 2022 at 09:47:43AM -0700]:

@mika, @vt-alt as packagers, I was wondering what you thought about #3889 ? This should allow to package libbpf-tools on much bigger variety of distros and kernels, but I'm not sure if it's relevant to you at all. Would love to hear comments, thanks!

Thanks for keeping us in the loop and reaching out, @anakryiko! I'm here-by Cc-ing (via mail) Vasudev and Ritesh, who do the actual packaging work in Debian. :) (Vasudev + Ritesh, see #3263 (comment) for the details, sorry, I didn't know your github handles, if you should have any) regards Mika

[vt-alt]

BTW, in ALT we build newer kernels (of the two main flavours) with CONFIG_DEBUG_INFO_BTF=y.