Bug 1955154

Summary:	Remove hard dependency on kernel-devel
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Rafael Fonseca <rdossant>
Component:	bcc	Assignee:	Jiri Olsa <jolsa>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	rawhide	CC:	acaringi, ctrautma, jmarchan, jolsa, rdossant, skozina, zsun
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Triaged
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	bcc-0.20.0-2.fc34	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:	1906144	Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-06-16 01:03:46 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	1906144
Bug Blocks:

Description Rafael Fonseca 2021-04-29 14:47:24 UTC

+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1906144 +++

Now that in-kernel headers have been enabled (CONFIG_IKHEADERS=m), we don't need the kernel-devel package to be installed.

At this point, I haven't decided whether to remove the dependency entirely, or replace it by a weak one (Suggest: or Recommends:). The support of ikheaders should be already in current version of bcc and bpftrace.

Comment 1 Jerome Marchand 2021-04-30 11:33:44 UTC

We should keep a weak dependency on kernel-devel, since it doesn't need the expensive unpacking of kheaders step.

Also, some bpftrace tools doesn't work when kernel-devel is absent, although they should.
https://github.com/iovisor/bpftrace/issues/1820
It's clearly a bpftrace bug that should be fixed, but in the mean time, "Recommends: kernel-devel" should mitigate the issue.

Comment 2 Jiri Olsa 2021-05-02 20:04:57 UTC

(In reply to Jerome Marchand from comment #1)
> We should keep a weak dependency on kernel-devel, since it doesn't need the
> expensive unpacking of kheaders step.

sorry I missed this comment and submitted the change
and have koji build without kernel-devel dependency:
  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1742774

I'll check how weak dependency work and make the change
or comment in here

> 
> Also, some bpftrace tools doesn't work when kernel-devel is absent, although
> they should.
> https://github.com/iovisor/bpftrace/issues/1820
> It's clearly a bpftrace bug that should be fixed, but in the mean time,
> "Recommends: kernel-devel" should mitigate the issue.

Comment 3 Jiri Olsa 2021-05-03 13:22:38 UTC

hum, so looks weak dependency won't install only if there would be an error,
so kernel-devel will still keep installing for bcc if it's weak dependency
unless you specifically say not to:

  dnf --setopt=install_weak_deps=False

I'm not sure that this was the original idea for striping kernel-devel
dependency, Stanislav?

Comment 4 Stanislav Kozina 2021-05-03 13:33:56 UTC

Looks like there's the weaker variant 'Hints', aka 'Suggests:' in the spec file:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/WeakDependencies/
Would that work?

Comment 6 Jerome Marchand 2021-05-03 15:35:19 UTC

(In reply to Stanislav Kozina from comment #4)
> Looks like there's the weaker variant 'Hints', aka 'Suggests:' in the spec
> file:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/WeakDependencies/
> Would that work?

The reason I went with Recommends: is that it doesn't breaks bpftrace tools in the default install, yet allows to install bcc without kernel-devel.

Comment 7 Stanislav Kozina 2021-05-03 17:48:27 UTC

Nice, so we should be good (there's a way to do what is needed). Thank you Jerome!

Comment 8 Jiri Olsa 2021-05-04 14:17:30 UTC

ok, will add Recommends: to bcc as well then, thanks

Comment 9 Jiri Olsa 2021-05-05 13:27:00 UTC

(In reply to Jiri Olsa from comment #8)
> ok, will add Recommends: to bcc as well then, thanks

in bcc build:
  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1744136

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2021-06-09 21:38:16 UTC

FEDORA-2021-3875b6e442 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3875b6e442

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2021-06-10 01:20:36 UTC

FEDORA-2021-3875b6e442 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3875b6e442`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3875b6e442

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2021-06-11 21:54:31 UTC

FEDORA-2021-1ea2bfd57e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1ea2bfd57e

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2021-06-12 01:57:38 UTC

FEDORA-2021-1ea2bfd57e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-1ea2bfd57e`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1ea2bfd57e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2021-06-16 01:03:46 UTC

FEDORA-2021-1ea2bfd57e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.