From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2DC0688E for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:49:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2015 03:49:30 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,364,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="863186123" Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.237.208.62]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2015 03:49:28 -0800 Received: by (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:49:27 +0025 Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:49:27 +0000 From: Bruce Richardson To: Thomas Monjalon Message-ID: <20151130114927.GA27968@bricha3-MOBL3> References: <1446805454-17776-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <3475702.r5OlE1Gpee@xps13> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B03598A952@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> <2760426.SYAZ0tSqOg@xps13> <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B03598A978@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <59AF69C657FD0841A61C55336867B5B03598A978@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com> Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) 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 11:49:33 -0000 On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:41:32AM +0000, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > 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. > 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. :-) /Bruce > > 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 >