Re: [PATCH] RFC: perf, tools: Move gtk browser into separate perfgtkexecutable

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:31:32AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Nonsense, a distro, if it truly worried about this, could create two 
> packages already, there's no need to expose configuration options in the 
> binary name itself and burden users with the separation. I sometimes 
> switch the UI frontend of perf depending on the workflow and the terminal, 
> it would be highly annoying if the binary name was changed to expose 
> configuration options.

Which means you'd have to use a different tool name or have incompatible
packages, both of which aren't desirable.

> The thing is, you strongly objected to perf itself when we offered it up 
> for an upstream merge and I'm not surprised you still don't like it.

I strongly objected to adding it to the kernel tree, and I still stand
to that opinion because it makes using perf much more painful than it
needs to be.  I never disliked perf itself and use it frequently now
that I can bypass some of the pains by just using an older distro
package.

But I'd much rather get this back to technical discussions than personal
attacks..

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/