Closed ocampeau closed 2 years ago
That sounds like a great idea. I'll be happy to accept a PR. By the way, there is a Dockerfile that you can use to build the project inside a docker container.
Great! I'll try to have a PR ready soon.
Also, I just took a look at the Dockerfile, and I was not aware of the libbpf-devel
package (or libbpf-dev
on Debian). That's awesome. It makes it much easier to have the header files. I was used to link libbpf
from the kernel source tree.
I still see some advantages though to have an include directory within the project that would include all files from libbpf-devel
package (and possibly more).
The most obvious to me is to make it possible to build the binary from within the project without any external dependencies. Another advantage I see is for versioning: to make sure anyone building the project locally are doing it against the same version of the bpf
header files.
I'll submit a PR soon.
Feature request
Maybe the project can come with its own
include
directory containing all standardbpf
header files required to build the project, which would make it much easier for everybody to just build the binary locally without bothering aboutbpf
dependencies.Use case
After cloning the project, the
make build
command failed because I did not have my bpf include files in/usr/include/bpf
.Luckily, I had a personal project on my machine using
libbpf
, and so I just copied some of my include files to/usr/include/bpf
and it worked. But for some other people less familiar withbpf
who just wants to try this amazing tool (still in early stage, but looks quite promising) it might be a blocker.Is this feature request gets accepted, I can submit a PR.