From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:13:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160212165932.GA26328@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com>
2016-02-12 16:59, Ferruh Yigit:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-02-12 14:31, Panu Matilainen:
> > > On 01/28/2016 04:31 PM, Bernard Iremonger wrote:
> > > > add config/defconfig_x86_64-default-linuxapp-gcc file.
> > >
> > > There was a related discussion back in March, see
> > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-March/014626.html
> > >
> > > I intended to go with that and submit patch(es) but the amount of
> > > duplication and new files gets mind-numbing when you make them for all
> > > existing targets. In other words, this approach doesn't scale.
> > >
> > > Thomas, I remember seeing a plan to include a configure script in DPDK
> > > many times in past months. Do you have something specific in mind, ie
> > > actually use autoconf or just a custom hand-written script named
> > > "configure" that roughly resembles autoconf configure or...?
> >
> > A script named "configure" looks fine.
> > Bruce introduced the idea of calling "make config" in the script:
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026256.html
> > Maybe it is a good start to move forward.
> > I think we have to choose between a script and a kconfig approach giving
> > the menus GUIs as bonus.
> >
> Another thing kconfig can help is to resolve dependencies, harder to make this with a
> script. Currently we already have dependencies, although not complex, and resolved
> within makefile.
Dependencies are not so well resolved currently.
We have internal and external dependencies.
The internal ones would be better resolved with kconfig or a script.
The external dependencies are often managed by autotools but I'm sure
we prefer have a clean script instead of this beast ;)
> I believe correct place to solve them is a configuration tool so that makefiles or
> source files can be clean.
I think a configuration tool/script must help to make a working config.
But do you really think we should remove the gatekeepers in Makefiles?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-12 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-28 14:31 Bernard Iremonger
2016-02-12 12:31 ` Panu Matilainen
2016-02-12 15:04 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-12 16:59 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-12 17:13 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2016-02-12 17:23 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-16 11:16 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-16 11:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-16 12:08 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-17 10:42 ` Iremonger, Bernard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).