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

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Mon Aug 05 2013 - 04:31:43 EST

* Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 10:16:41AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > If you want fewer dependencies then build with 'make NO_GTK=1'.
> Doesn't help the distros. Installing perf and pulling all the graphics
> libraries in is highly annoying, especially in size constrained VM or
> Cloud images. Having a separate binary or at least an ldopen()able
> plugin that can go into a separate package is highly desirable.

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.

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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at