Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] mk: fix libs installation when installing sdk

[Thomas Monjalon <thomas@monjalon.net>]

15/12/2017 11:45, Olivier MATZ:
> 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

Yes

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

Depends logically, yes. But no dependence in the Makefile.