Re: [GIT PULL] perf tools changes for v6.2: 1st batch

[Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <arnaldo.melo@gmail.com>]

On December 17, 2022 4:55:25 PM GMT-03:00, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 8:50 AM Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
><acme@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> The python3-setuptools package is needed to build the python binding, so
>> that one can use things like:
>
>So this fixes the error, but there's some other reason for it.
>
>I have
>
>  Package python3-setuptools-59.6.0-3.fc36.noarch is already installed.
>
>and with that patch the 'perf' build now works for me, but it says:
>
>    Makefile.config:898: Missing python setuptools, the python binding
>won't be built, please install python3-setuptools or equivalent
>
>and then (pre-existing)
>
>    Makefile.config:921: Python interpreter too old (older than 3.6)
>disabling jevent generation
>
>but I have
>
>    python3-3.10.8-3.fc36.x86_64
>
>Now, for some reason I *also* have python2 installed, but that one is
>called "python2".
>
>[ Me trying to figure things out ]
>
>Ok, so if I uninstall my old python2 install, I now get
>
>  Makefile.config:880: No python interpreter was found: disables
>Python support - please install python-devel/python-dev
>  Makefile.config:915: No python interpreter disabling jevent generation
>
>ok, so I didn't have 'python3-devel' installed. Installing that fixes
>some things, but then I get
>
>  Makefile.config:889: No 'Python.h' (for Python 2.x support) was
>found: disables Python support - please install
>python-devel/python-dev
>
>so apparently perf really wants *both* python2 and python3 installed.
>Isn't that a bit excessive?

Well, perf used python2, then python3 became and option, had to be explicitly selected, then the default moved to python3.

Now probably the sensible thing is to get rid of all things related to python2, I'll spend some time on this...

>Anyway, it's clearly something about the install on this laptop, but
>the error messages and the "this package is missing" things are
>clearly not entirely right.
>
>Whatever. It does build cleanly now for me, and I'll ignore that "No
>'Python.h' (for Python 2.x support)" thing.

Ok, thanks for testing it.

- Arnaldo