kernel-perf subpackage

When I changed the manual require from libdwarf to elfutils-libs because the perf tool upstream changed, I got nervous about a few things. Firstly, having this growingly complex userland binary packaged without automatic requires so changes like that are necessary. That change wasn't even really right, since it needs to be an arch-sensitive require to really win. So Fedora kernel weenies dimly following the wild upstream perf development actually managing to hand-maintain that perfectly is manifestly laughable. Second, sheesh, so now a new/old kernel rpm I only wanted to try booting might refuse to install because of the wrong version of some DWARF library? And/or all that gets installed just because I wanted to boot the kernel? You hear maniacal laughter in the distance. So I did the following spec hack (not really tested yet). This puts the perf tool into its own subpackage, i.e. kernel-perf. Now that subpackage gets normal autorequires and we don't have to worry about that. You don't have to install kernel-perf to install kernel{,-variant}. Two notes: 1. There is only one kernel-perf subpackage for all the kernel and kernel-variant subpackages enabled. I went with one perf binary and symlinks instead of separate binaries. The upstream code is really supposed to be a sane userland interface, if not a stable one. So new kernel sources will change it 8 ways from Sunday. But unless they've gone even more insane up there, kconfig differences should not change the kernel-user API that perf is built to. 2. Not to be confused with the existing perf package, i.e. the wrapper script (and docs). You still get to have only one of those installed, with a separate kernel-perf for each kernel build version you are using. 3. I thought about calling it kernel-tools or something, in case of future things from tools/ worth installing. But I shied away from any general name because they all seem misleadingly like a first-class thing a user would want to install, rather than some arcane bowels as this really is. I guess if there were more such things one day, there would be front-end multiplexor scripts as for perf and then we'd change that package's name too. (Yes, I know that was 3 out of 2. It's a bonus tangent.) Is this idea good, bad, or indifferent? It's really only the hand-maintenance of the rpm deps for the perf binary that make me want to run and hide. The "you want me to install *what* so I can rescue this damn lossage with an additional kernel rpm install?" scenario is only hypothetical off hand (and having some compatible elfutils-libs installed is already the normal situation anyway)--I just figure when it bites someone, it will happen to them at the fringes of their wits' end, so they will be especially peeved. Thanks, Roland Index: kernel.spec =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/kernel/devel/kernel.spec,v retrieving revision 1.2039 diff -u -b -p -r1.2039 kernel.spec --- kernel.spec 22 Jun 2010 23:11:06 -0000 1.2039 +++ kernel.spec 23 Jun 2010 00:14:50 -0000 @@ -454,9 +454,6 @@ Requires(pre): %{initrd_prereq}\ Requires(pre): kernel-firmware >= %{rpmversion}-%{pkg_release}\ %else\ Requires(pre): linux-firmware\ -%if %{with_perftool}\ -Requires(pre): elfutils-libs\ -%endif\ %endif\ Requires(post): /sbin/new-kernel-pkg\ Requires(preun): /sbin/new-kernel-pkg\ @@ -768,13 +765,26 @@ Group: Development/Debug This package is required by %{name}-debuginfo subpackages. It provides the kernel source files common to all builds. +%if %{with_perftool} +%package perf +Summary: Performance monitoring for the Linux kernel +Group: Development/System +License: GPLv2 +%description perf +This package provides the perf tool to match this kernel package. +Install the perf package to get the %{_sbindir}/perf front-end script. +%endif + %package -n perf Summary: Performance monitoring for the Linux kernel Group: Development/System License: GPLv2 +%if %{with_perftool} +Requires: kernel-perf(%{_arch}) >= %{version}-%{release} +%endif %description -n perf This package provides the supporting documentation for the perf tool -shipped in each kernel image subpackage. +found in the %{name}-perf subpackage. # # This macro creates a kernel-<subpackage>-debuginfo package. @@ -1387,16 +1397,6 @@ BuildKernel() { make -s ARCH=$Arch V=1 %{?_smp_mflags} $MakeTarget %{?sparse_mflags} make -s ARCH=$Arch V=1 %{?_smp_mflags} modules %{?sparse_mflags} || exit 1 -%if %{with_perftool} - pushd tools/perf -# make sure the scripts are executable... won't be in tarball until 2.6.31 :/ - chmod +x util/generate-cmdlist.sh util/PERF-VERSION-GEN - make -s V=1 NO_DEMANGLE=1 %{?_smp_mflags} perf - mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/libexec/ - install -m 755 perf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/libexec/perf.$KernelVer - popd -%endif - # Start installing the results %if %{with_debuginfo} mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{debuginfodir}/boot @@ -1545,6 +1545,11 @@ BuildKernel() { mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/src/kernels mv $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/modules/$KernelVer/build $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/$DevelDir ln -sf ../../..$DevelDir $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/lib/modules/$KernelVer/build + +%if %{with_perftool} + [ -z "$Flavour" ] || + ln -snf perf.%{KVERREL} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libexecdir}/perf.$KernelVer +%endif } ### @@ -1554,6 +1559,7 @@ BuildKernel() { # prepare directories rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/boot +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libexecdir} cd linux-%{kversion}.%{_target_cpu} @@ -1577,6 +1583,10 @@ BuildKernel %make_target %kernel_image BuildKernel %make_target %kernel_image smp %endif +%if %{with_perftool} +make -C tools/perf -s V=1 NO_DEMANGLE=1 %{?_smp_mflags} perf +%endif + %if %{with_doc} # Make the HTML and man pages. make %{?_smp_mflags} htmldocs mandocs || %{doc_build_fail} @@ -1651,12 +1661,16 @@ done popd %endif # with_perf +# perf tool binary +%if %{with_perftool} +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libexecdir} +install -m 755 tools/perf/perf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_libexecdir}/perf.%{KVERREL} +%endif + # perf shell wrapper %if %{with_perf} -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/sbin/ -cp $RPM_SOURCE_DIR/perf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/sbin/perf -chmod 0755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/usr/sbin/perf -mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/perf +mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sbindir} $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/doc/perf +install -m 755 $RPM_SOURCE_DIR/perf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sbindir}/perf %endif %if %{with_headers} @@ -1826,10 +1840,16 @@ fi %files -n perf %defattr(-,root,root) %{_datadir}/doc/perf -/usr/sbin/perf +%{_sbindir}/perf %{_datadir}/man/man1/* %endif +%if %{with_perftool} +%files perf +%defattr(-,root,root) +%{_libexecdir}/perf.%{KVERREL}* +%endif + # This is %{image_install_path} on an arch where that includes ELF files, # or empty otherwise. %define elf_image_install_path %{?kernel_image_elf:%{image_install_path}} @@ -1845,9 +1865,6 @@ fi %defattr(-,root,root)\ /%{image_install_path}/%{?-k:%{-k*}}%{!?-k:vmlinuz}-%{KVERREL}%{?2:.%{2}}\ /boot/System.map-%{KVERREL}%{?2:.%{2}}\ -%if %{with_perftool}\ -/usr/libexec/perf.%{KVERREL}%{?2:.%{2}}\ -%endif\ #/boot/symvers-%{KVERREL}%{?2:.%{2}}.gz\ /boot/config-%{KVERREL}%{?2:.%{2}}\ %dir /lib/modules/%{KVERREL}%{?2:.%{2}}\