[ltt-dev] UST communication library

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

* Yannick Brosseau (yannick.brosseau at gmail.com) wrote:
> So the 1b)  options sounds good in this area.

1b (doing the libust .so detection at configure time) is much less clean
and flexible than the option I refered to in my previous email. 1b turns
into a static build-time detection what should really be dynamic
detection of compatible applications talking the same libust protocol,
based on a separate library with version number on the protocol.

Mathieu

> 
> On 2011-06-15 11:24, David Goulet wrote:
> > Exactly! Thus having a hard dependency is completely out of question.
> >
> > On 11-06-15 11:21 AM, Yannick Brosseau wrote:
> >
> > >> Enlighten me Yannick :)
> > >>
> > >> # apt-get install lttng-tools
> > >>
> > >> How are you going to have the UST support without installing the UST
> > >> package
> > >> (assuming that libustcomm is inside ust) ?
> > >>
> > >> I figure you'll have a "Not found libust.so..." at execution time ?
> >
> > > Exactly, for the *runtime* dependency, that would be a *recommand* and
> > > we detect if libusb is present or not. But  that's really up to the
> > > packager to decide how he does it. Each distro might have their own
> > > policies.
> >
> > > As the upstream developer, you should let the user decide if he want UST
> > > support or not. I might be building an embedded system were space is a
> > > constraint and I would want to only  have the kernel tracer and not
> > > bother with he userspace one.
> >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ltt-dev mailing list
> > > ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> > > http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ltt-dev mailing list
> ltt-dev at lists.casi.polymtl.ca
> http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
> 

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com