From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
Received: from mail.droids-corp.org (zoll.droids-corp.org [94.23.50.67])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6E6E271
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:46:06 +0100 (CET)
Received: from lfbn-lil-1-110-231.w90-45.abo.wanadoo.fr ([90.45.197.231]
 helo=droids-corp.org)
 by mail.droids-corp.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256)
 (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <olivier.matz@6wind.com>)
 id 1ePnbN-0001gm-Ao; Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:52:26 +0100
Received: by droids-corp.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation);
 Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:45:59 +0100
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:45:59 +0100
From: Olivier MATZ <olivier.matz@6wind.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, Samuel Gauthier <samuel.gauthier@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20171215104558.47nnc2nzmhbqndc6@platinum>
References: <20171214142411.25375-1-olivier.matz@6wind.com>
 <7350468.cg4rjIInEc@xps> <20171215102516.ltn5uhrglvvnb66e@platinum>
 <5295568.lEBEY0ou7Q@xps>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5295568.lEBEY0ou7Q@xps>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: fix libs installation when installing sdk
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:46:07 -0000

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:32:12AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 15/12/2017 11:25, Olivier MATZ:
> > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:19:57AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > > 14/12/2017 15:24, Olivier Matz:
> > > > @@ -157,6 +157,8 @@ install-sdk:
> > > >  	$(Q)cp -a               $O/.config               $(DESTDIR)$(targetdir)
> > > >  	$(Q)cp -a               $O/app/dpdk-pmdinfogen   $(DESTDIR)$(targetdir)/app
> > > >  	$(Q)$(call rte_symlink, $(DESTDIR)$(includedir), $(DESTDIR)$(targetdir)/include)
> > > > +	$(Q)$(call rte_mkdir,                            $(DESTDIR)$(libdir))
> > > > +	$(Q)cp -a               $O/lib/*                 $(DESTDIR)$(libdir)
> > > >  	$(Q)$(call rte_symlink, $(DESTDIR)$(libdir),     $(DESTDIR)$(targetdir)/lib)
> > > 
> > > The libs are already installed with "make install-runtime".
> > > Either we add a dependency between install-sdk and install-runtime,
> > > or we clearly document it.
> > 
> > To me, libs are needed when installing the sdk (to compile against them)
> > and when installing the runtime (to use them).
> > 
> > Is it a problem to have it in both targets?
> 
> Yes it is a problem because the general use is to call every targets,
> so the libs will be installed twice. Look at the global "install" target.
> 
> Do you want to be able to install the SDK without the runtime?

Hmm, you're right, installing the runtime instead of the sdk may be a
solution in our case. We don't need the bin, man, ... but it's probably
not an issue to have them anyway.

So, to summarize:
  install-runtime is the equivalent of the binary package
  install-sdk is the equivalent of the -devel package

And install-sdk depends on install-runtime, right?