From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.mhcomputing.net (master.mhcomputing.net [74.208.46.186]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95003E82 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 23:15:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.mhcomputing.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1F0B680B615; Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:21:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 14:21:50 -0700 From: Matthew Hall To: Neil Horman Message-ID: <20141003212150.GA2637@mhcomputing.net> References: <1412265386-26291-1-git-send-email-sergio.gonzalez.monroy@intel.com> <2041475.WSUx3LgNfR@xps13> <20141003081019.GA28988@sivswdev02.ir.intel.com> <2274825.SfVmqUQfpO@xps13> <20141003113234.GB24059@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> <20141003181713.GC1741@mhcomputing.net> <20141003191546.GD24059@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141003191546.GD24059@hmsreliant.think-freely.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Fix build issues with CONFIG_RTE_BUILD_COMBINE_LIBS=y 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: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 21:15:36 -0000 On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:15:46PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote: > With a single archive, you get everything you build even if you don't need > it. Right, I was trying to avoid that for people who specifically didn't want it, if there are any... I'm not one of them. > But presumably if you're building a static binary, you're > likely building the dpdk as well and can configure optional libraries out of the > build. Separate libraries are more a need for downstream > distributors/packagers, who use dynamic shared objects anyway. Yeah, I was thinking it'd be nice if the downstream packagers could get a global '.a' and per-sublib '.a' as well. So that one dpdk package could be used by a client app which wanted everything, or only wanted portions. > Backward compatibilty? the DPDK doesn't yet provide run time compatibility > between releases (something I've been trying to change). Nobody provides > compile time compatibility. To do so would require fixing API's permenently. Agreed. I was just advocating to avoid worsening the already existent issues. ;) Matthew.