John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 05:06:45PM -0500, William Cohen wrote:
>>Looking at the questionable line in opcontrol I realize why that was in
>>there in the first place. opcontrol needs to use oprofiled and ophelp.
>>If someone used --prefix and installed it in a non-standard place
>>another versions of ophelp and oprofiled might used. The script is
>>suppose to use the ophelp and oprofiled in the same directory as
>>opcontrol. Would having a full path to which and dirname be sufficient
>>to fix this problem like the attached patch?
> Patch is fine, but I don't want to give off the impression that we're
> supporting (broken configs of) sudo.
Yes, given that the opcontrol and other software has not been audited
for security issues, using sudo shouldn't be avocated. I will check in
the patch this morning.
There have been a number of times that people have asked for performance
monitoring capability configuration for normal users. Performance tools
like Apple's Shark and sysprof allow normal users to use them. OProfile
data analysis can be done by normal users, but it would really be nice
to eliminate the root access. It doesn't have to allow fully flexible
set up of OProfile configuration, allowing time-based monitoring of
applications would be sufficient.