From: Al Stone <ahs3@fc.hp.com>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: q-tools-0.0 released
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:54:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1076090084.886.24.camel@fcboson.fc.hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040205215009.GA2316@cup.hp.com>
On Fri, 2004-02-06 at 05:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 11:26:47PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > Grant,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 09:05:21PM -0800, Grant Grundler wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 02:57:22PM -0800, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > > > You need to have libpfm-3.0 installed on your system.
> > > > I think Al Stone published the package on the Debian sites.
> > > > You need the development + runtime packages.
> > >
> > > Stephane,
> > > Yes, he did.
> > > Debian currently has:
> > > ii libpfm 2.0-6 IA-64 Performance Monitor (PMU) -- runt-time
> > > ii libpfm-dev 2.0-6 IA-64 Performance Monitor (PMU) -- developme
> > > ii pfmon 3.0-2 a performance monitoring tool for Linux/ia64
> > >
> > > The pfmon from debian was probably built against "2.0-6" libpfm.
> > That's wrong. I don't event think it compiles that way.
No, that is not correct. The pfmon_3.0-1 packages includes
_both_ the 2.0 and 3.0 pfmon commands plus a wrapper that
determines what kernel is currently being run and execs the
proper pfmon. Each of the pfmon commands was built using
the proper version of libpfm.
The pfmon_3.0-1 packages depends on libpfm2_2.0-1 and
libpfm3_3.0-1 (but not the -dev packages).
> > > Is that bad?
> > Yes, it is. there should be a libpfm_3.0 and libpfm-dev_3.0 packages.
There are:
-- libpfm2 and libpfm2-dev packages.
-- libpfm3 and libpfm3-dev packages.
Note that I chose to move the location of the header files
in the -dev packages so they wouldn't overwrite one another
(they used to both go in /usr/include/perfmon, but now go in
/usr/include/perfmon2 and /usr/include/perfmon3); the other
alternative was to completely rewrite them and merge them so
they had the proper API for the proper kernel version. I may
yet do that, but it seemed more important to get the 3.0 stuff
out first.
> Looks like the Debian packages have some problems:
>
> Package: pfmon
> Depends: libc6.1 (>= 2.3.2.ds1-4), libelfg0, libpfm2, libpfm3
> $ sudo apt-get install pfmon
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> pfmon: Depends: libpfm2 but it is not installable
> Depends: libpfm3 but it is not installable
>
> Al, what's up?
Hmmm. I must have missed a case in my install testing.
pfmon is set up to depend on libpfm2 and libpfm3. libpfm2
was told to replace libpfm. It looks like I forgot to tell
it to replace libpfm-dev, too. Oops. I'll rebuild and
upload later today. If you remove libpfm and libpfm-dev
in the meantime, the install should proceed. Sorry 'bout
that....
--
Ciao,
al
----------------------------
Al Stone
Linux & Open Source Lab
Hewlett-Packard Company
E-mail: ahs3@fc.hp.com
----------------------------
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-06 17:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-05 21:50 q-tools-0.0 released Grant Grundler
2004-02-05 22:28 ` Grant Grundler
2004-02-05 22:57 ` Stephane Eranian
2004-02-06 5:05 ` Grant Grundler
2004-02-06 7:26 ` Stephane Eranian
2004-02-06 12:24 ` Matthew Wilcox
2004-02-06 17:54 ` Al Stone [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-12-07 1:17 David Mosberger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1076090084.886.24.camel@fcboson.fc.hp.com \
--to=ahs3@fc.hp.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox