From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3412511A2 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:27:36 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmww144 with SMTP id w144so131792441wmw.1 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:27:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=LfPrQwHw+mlWEBV0O4ktZGDDlMOLpmcjjKmAqa0hDLk=; b=NsqscsULAmZoQtwy7BJRcV/qozjRSB1Fw9BL4AgwDRLKW1Ma7/ng6MfZxRPnMIOwrS T47yo8RXwzYiNR9TyGwgVTm0j6o5X5pJ8P/vTRCzqrGKOvfVij1KTTEmgWiNZAD/oH4p QY7ZtUv3AzBaX0ViQ9vcEkmB6mTCRzQkG9CKYDSH8oI7cWIP3qmTU8CbBfG/x+T0A4p4 AI9+9jbCjA1EsMYVHkWDJjvHuJ7jY7hOzR/fC7u0ekxHmHHGwCt5t/M8GePfwPTXeBJn QwJJcBVsAfh3xtUKqMoi8mUh6haJQZV0qEWWIw9EAKiw/s1ZFb4cWwh/DpgGu0TGGSrO GT2A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=LfPrQwHw+mlWEBV0O4ktZGDDlMOLpmcjjKmAqa0hDLk=; b=Cd9smsWvbbnjWIuNu1pYrN91pj3/BrOwtsbrEjcFbLnp0LlaHOOMj8kybYaZIYTJt6 TEZQxyzwLQlVblPcylOxghh9KNufG+LNrfLnlhLLwGNV53gPQO5Drn9EwCnUMVOx2X6X yd/Q85cJEEy80ugCaqk94JvHRMSjqGI5a60ZwK8oTvFqWaTF1X+0e/Cvst/iubiFcbMn 9RUd/lqMhXsevLUNfUcRrLk86ELtgQtvYOGK2tYitrteuTREO9PB4HgoavguLYCTz89p BxKoh0lVxhOjerHs7jqC24Z2NpzagDY8/zqYrCFrfHE3m8zJsOM0/wDQP7y6V+STSbyK VB1A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlSQT/jhzU9IWEEPGh/W2/X/3TZRnpbls3oaC8jnvcwql9yhN0nSfdVsM8OtNHPvviLCnia X-Received: by 10.194.58.5 with SMTP id m5mr73384423wjq.31.1448893656008; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:27:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e83sm21657743wmc.23.2015.11.30.06.27.35 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:27:35 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Bruce Richardson Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:26:27 +0100 Message-ID: <10499878.KsiGVSYioF@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20151130114927.GA27968@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1446805454-17776-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B03598A978@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <20151130114927.GA27968@bricha3-MOBL3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] reserve 'make install' for future use X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:27:36 -0000 2015-11-30 11:49, Bruce Richardson: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:41:32AM +0000, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:27 AM > > > To: Richardson, Bruce > > > Cc: Panu Matilainen ; dev@dpdk.org; > > > olivier.matz@6wind.com > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] reserve 'make install' for future use > > > > > > 2015-11-30 11:08, Richardson, Bruce: > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon@6wind.com] > > > > > Why is it a step in the right direction? > > > > > > > > > > We just need to install the files in a different hierarchy and adapt > > > > > the makefiles to be able to compile an application while keeping the > > > > > RTE_SDK variable to specify the root directory (previously built > > > > > thanks to DESTDIR). > > > > > As the hierarchy could be tuned, we need more variables, e.g.: > > > > > DPDK_INC_DIR (default = RTE_SDK/include/dpdk) > > > > > DPDK_LIB_DIR (default = RTE_SDK/lib) > > > > > > > > > > While doing it, we can have a specific handling of T= to keep > > > > > compatibility with the current (old) syntax. > > > > > > > > > > What have I missed? > > > > > > > > I'm not sure our existing "make install" is suitable for use for this, > > > without having it heavily overloaded. The existing T= behavior has support > > > for wildcards and compiling multiple instances at the same time - > > > something that won't work with a scheme to actually install DPDK > > > throughout the filesystem hierarchy. Having it sometimes behave as now, > > > and sometimes behave as a standard make install is a bad idea IMHO, as it > > > confuses things. Having lots of extra environment variables is also not a > > > great idea, to my mind. > > > > > > Yes I agree. > > > I forgot to mention it, but in my idea, we can drop the support for > > > multiple targets. So the T= compatibility would be only a shortcut to do > > > "make config" and name the build directory based on the template name. > > > > > > About the environment variables: > > > An application requires CFLAGS and LDFLAGS (at least). The standard way to > > > provide them is pkgconfig (not implemented yet). > > > For applications using the DPDK makefiles, the only input is RTE_SDK. > > > When allowing more tuning in paths, we need more variables when using the > > > DPDK makefiles to build an application. > > > > > > > My opinion is that we should rename our existing "make install" to > > > something more suitable - my patch suggestion was "make sdk" but it could > > > be "make target" or something else if people prefer. Once that is done, we > > > can then look to implement a proper "make install" command that works in a > > > standard way, perhaps alongside a configure script of some description. > > > > > > I think we don't need to rename or move some code. > > > Just drop and replace some of them. > > > > > > The configure script is a great idea but it is a totally different idea. > > > I do not think that installation and configuration should be related. > > > Please let's consider "make install" first. > > > > > > > For an easy enough solution, I would look to apply this patch to create > > > "make sdk" and also http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/8076/ to have a > > > "make install" command that works in the build dir. That way: > > > > * you can have existing behavior using "make sdk T=" > > > > * you can have standard(ish) configure/make/make install behavior using: > > > > make config T= > > > > cd build > > > > make > > > > make install > > > > and the "make config" step can subsequently be wrapped in a configure > > > script to eliminate the need to know what the best target to use is, etc. > > > > > > As Panu commented, I do not think it is a good idea to have different > > > behaviours inside and outside of the build directory. > > > I would even say that this embedded makefile is only confusing and should > > > be dropped. > > > We need to have *one* right building methods, not to bring more confusion. > > > > I disagree. I don't think we can have *one* right building method, because to > > do so means completely throwing away our existing methods of building DPDK > > and using sample applications. That general method, using RTE_SDK and RTE_TARGET > > needs to be supported for some time for those projects already familiar with it > > and using it. We can keep it for some time while allowing other tree hierarchies. > > As well as this, we also need a sane way of building DPDK inside the "build" > > directory, and having a "make install" target that installs the libraries > > and headers inside /usr/local (or whatever was specified as $prefix). > > > > With regards to different behavior, since different targets are provided, I > > don't see it as a problem. In the root directory, "make config" and "make sdk" > > are provided for backward compatibility. Inside the build directory you have > > your standard "make" and "make install" commands. Since the command set is > > very limited, it's easy enough to print a suitable error when the wrong > > command is used in the wrong place. > > By way of follow-up to my own email, I'd also state that I would indeed prefer > not to have different targets in different places, and that ideally you would > do configure/make/make-install from the root directory. The reason I suggested > having "make install" work inside the build directory is because of our > existing use of "make install" for something different in the root directory. > This is also the reason I sent out this patch. By renaming the "make install" > command in 2.2, we give ourselves the option in future releases of adding in > a new "make install" command that behaves as we want, without having to worry > about conflict with a legacy make install. > > That is why I feel this one patch should go in - it opens up more options for > us in future releases. It's not an end in itself. :-) If we do not agree on something else (I'll try to submit some patches), yes your patch to introduce "make sdk" will be integrated. But I'd prefer avoiding to document a new command which will be deprecated when the new-new "make install" will be implemented. I think there is another solution (I may be wrong). > > Yes, I would like the ideal state where we have one set of build commands that > > are run from just one location. However, I don't think we can get to that objective > > without going through a transition phase where we support both old and new options. > > > > /Bruce