Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/7] Add hierarchical support to make install

["Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C" <mario.alfredo.c.arevalo@intel.com>]

Hi,
 
Thanks you for your feedback, I’ll send a version 2 based on last comments.
 
Thanks,
Mario

________________________________________
From: Olivier MATZ [olivier.matz@6wind.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:40 AM
To: Panu Matilainen; Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C; dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/7] Add hierarchical support to make install

Hi,

On 09/22/2015 12:14 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> In my packaging of DPDK I ended up providing both: headers, libraries
> etc in the normal system paths, and then a separate dpdk-sdk directory
> holding the SDK-parts like mk bits and symlinking to the libs and
> headers as needed, so that you can actually point RTE_SDK to that
> dpdk-sdk dir and be able to build apps against the thing.

Great, it didn't know that.

>> My question is: do we want to keep the current install behavior for
>> compatibility or not? Should we consider this makefile directive as
>> an API? People may use it, and we should at least ask us it it should
>> follow a sort of API deprecation process like we do for the code.
>> That's why I talked about 2 new commands and deprecate the old one.
>
> I'd be surprised if somebody somewhere isn't relying on the current
> specific behavior, given its explicitly documented and all. Whether it
> needs to stay, and whether it needs to stay as the default ... I
> wouldn't miss it, but its a question for those using and depending on it
> really.

Ok. So if nobody else complains, I have no objection to change the
default behavior of "make install" to this which indeed looks more
usual and distribution-friendly. In this case we may remove the
old one, it's probably better than having a H=1 option.


Regards,
Olivier