Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration

[Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:13:49PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 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?
> 
I think we should remove combination of config related "if" checks from makefiles,
"ENABLE-$(CONFIG_X) += y" should be sufficient.

And if CONFIG_X should be set or not is be problem of the config tool.

Thanks,
ferruh