From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>
To: techboard@dpdk.org
Cc: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>,
Ray Kinsella <mdr@ashroe.eu>, Billy McFall <bmcfall@redhat.com>,
Thomas F Herbert <therbert@redhat.com>, dpdk-dev <dev@dpdk.org>,
Luca Boccassi <luca.boccassi@gmail.com>,
ndas@suse.de,
Christian Ehrhardt <christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com>,
"Stokes, Ian" <ian.stokes@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] Discussion on the OS Packaging of DPDK
Date: Fri, 10 May 2019 20:43:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2098214.X7U14xP0QZ@xps> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190510134333.GA87@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com>
10/05/2019 15:43, Bruce Richardson:
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 02:01:54PM +0100, Ray Kinsella wrote:
> > ( from the undersigned )
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > In light of the renewed community discussion on API Stability
> > (https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2019-April/128969.html), now is
> > right time to open a discussion on how DPDK is distributed and updated.
> >
> > To this point in time, DPDK's primary distribution method has been as
> > source code distributed as a tarball from dpdk.org. This distribution
> > method, in addition to abi instability and the dpdk's build system
> > default behaviour of static linking have all encouraged the "tight
> > coupling" or "vendorization" of DPDK.
> >
> > These behaviours makes it a challenge for end users, those deploying
> > applications based on DPDK, to manage and update DPDK in a method
> > consistent with other system libraries. For instance, an end user may
> > not have any idea which version of DPDK a consuming application may be
> > using and if this DPDK version is reasonably up to date with the latest
> > upstream version. This would not be the case for other system libraries
> > such as glibc.
> >
> > For these reasons, now is the right time for DPDK to embrace standard
> > Operating System practices for distributing and updating system
> > libraries. The current industry push towards cloud and
> > cloud-friendliness make addressing this issue all the more timely.
> >
> > To this end, the following proposals are made for discussion at the next
> > techboard meeting:-
> >
> > * The primary method of distributing DPDK should be as an operating
> > system package, dpdk.org should be updated to reflect this reality and
> > provide OS installation details in place of tarball downloads.
>
> I really like that idea. Since DPDK is available in distro packages that
> should be the first port of call for users getting DPDK. Since it's just a
> doc update - as I understand it anyway - it should be easy to implement if
> agreed, which is a nice bonus.
Yes. The real effort will be to stay up to date with changes
in OS distributions. If distro maintainers are willing to maintain it,
that's fine. Thank you :)
> > * DPDK should build as a dynamic shared libraries by default, to
> > encourage loose coupling with consuming applications.
>
> To a certain extent, this only applies with the "make" build system, which
> is due to be deprecated in the next release and removed sometime next year.
> With builds done with meson and ninja, both shared and static libraries are
> always built. The default setting though remains as "static" which applies
> only to the linking of applications as part of the DPDK build. This default
> was set mainly for legacy purposes, but also has benefits for us developers
> working on DPDK, since we don't need to worry about setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH
> and EAL_PMD_PATH values for running applications we've built. Therefore,
> I'm not sure of the value of changing the default here - it's certainly
> less important than the default in the "make" build system where only one
> library type at a time was built.
Yes no need to change the default.
If you build DPDK yourself, it is more convenient to use static libs.
If you want something easier to update, you probably use
the packages from distributions which are shared libraries.
> > * Future guarantees around ABI/API stability should be provided, so that
> > OS packagers can offer safe upgrade paths for consuming applications.
DPDK is a set of libraries, some more stable than others.
If we cannot guarantee a full stability for a long time,
we may have some changes here and there sometimes.
And it's even worst with experimental functions.
I think it is more realistic to provide a level of stability
per DPDK library. In order to leverage such fine grained stability,
the libraries should be packaged separately in the OS.
Then the applications relying only on stable libraries will be able
to link with updated libraries without any change or re-compilation.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-05-10 18:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-05-10 13:01 [dpdk-dev] " Ray Kinsella
2019-05-10 13:01 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-05-10 13:43 ` [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] " Bruce Richardson
2019-05-10 13:43 ` Bruce Richardson
2019-05-10 18:43 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2019-05-10 18:43 ` Thomas Monjalon
2019-05-13 7:15 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2019-05-13 7:15 ` Christian Ehrhardt
2019-05-14 9:41 ` Ray Kinsella
2019-05-14 9:41 ` Ray Kinsella
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=2098214.X7U14xP0QZ@xps \
--to=thomas@monjalon.net \
--cc=bmcfall@redhat.com \
--cc=bruce.richardson@intel.com \
--cc=christian.ehrhardt@canonical.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ian.stokes@intel.com \
--cc=luca.boccassi@gmail.com \
--cc=mdr@ashroe.eu \
--cc=ndas@suse.de \
--cc=techboard@dpdk.org \
--cc=therbert@redhat.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).