From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.tuxdriver.com (charlotte.tuxdriver.com [70.61.120.58]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C15AFD3 for ; Thu, 1 May 2014 15:14:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hmsreliant.think-freely.org ([2001:470:8:a08:7aac:c0ff:fec2:933b] helo=localhost) by smtp.tuxdriver.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1WfqoV-00045n-5W; Thu, 01 May 2014 09:14:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 09:14:10 -0400 From: Neil Horman To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20140501131410.GC14521@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> References: <1398818805-18834-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1398818805-18834-1-git-send-email-thomas.monjalon@6wind.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: -2.9 (--) X-Spam-Status: No Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 0/4] recipes for RPM packages 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: Thu, 01 May 2014 13:14:12 -0000 On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:46:41AM +0200, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > The goal of this patch serie is to be able to package DPDK > for RPM-based distributions. > > The file naming currently doesn't allow to install different DPDK versions. > But the packaging naming should be ready to manage different DPDK versions > having different API/ABI for different applications: > - dpdk-core has full version in its name to manage API breaking > - extensions have a number as name suffix to manage PMD API breaking. > When API/ABI will be stable, package names could be simpler. > > I suggest to add these .spec files as a starting point for integration > in Linux distributions. > > Changes since v1: > - name of .spec file match package name > - version in package name > - no static library > - ldconfig/depmod in scriplets > > Thanks for your comments/reviews. > -- > Thomas > I understand that this is holding up the 1.6.0r2 release, as well as the 1.7.0 integration. As such, given that my concerns, while valid IMO, aren't required for the release: Acked-by: Neil Horman