From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52B708E79 for ; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 18:43:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2015 09:43:10 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,276,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="683099917" Received: from fmsmsx103.amr.corp.intel.com ([10.18.124.201]) by orsmga003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Nov 2015 09:43:10 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx121.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.125.36) by FMSMSX103.amr.corp.intel.com (10.18.124.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.248.2; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:43:09 -0800 Received: from fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.6.71]) by fmsmsx121.amr.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.201]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Wed, 11 Nov 2015 09:43:09 -0800 From: "Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C" To: "Richardson, Bruce" Thread-Topic: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/10] Add installation rules for dpdk files Thread-Index: AQHRG9vsClQdcDvHsUqsUs9xGmdHQJ6V5ixegAFFTYD//+13IA== Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:43:09 +0000 Message-ID: <6594B51DBE477C48AAE23675314E6C460F77F592@fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1442608390-12537-1-git-send-email-mario.alfredo.c.arevalo@intel.com> <1447175260-26162-1-git-send-email-mario.alfredo.c.arevalo@intel.com> <6594B51DBE477C48AAE23675314E6C460F77F334@fmsmsx107.amr.corp.intel.com> <20151111104847.GA31936@bricha3-MOBL3> In-Reply-To: <20151111104847.GA31936@bricha3-MOBL3> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.1.200.108] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" , "Venegas Munoz, Jos C" Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/10] Add installation rules for dpdk files 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: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 17:43:14 -0000 Hi Bruce, First thank you for your help during this time, and you are right, the obj= ective of this is try to have a more standard installation process, I have = taken a look to your patches, and you rename targets as first step in order= to improve the installation process, I have the same intentions, talking a= bout my patch set, you can see different new targets in the makefile, this = seem that is more complex, but the reason about it is for flexibility, you = can install only relevant files for you that could be headers, libraries, m= akefiles, examples etc... in hierarchy paths by default and you can overrid= den these paths, however if you would like to install sdk files (install he= aders, makefiles, scripts,examples, tools and config files) you can use "i= nstall-sdk" or if you would like to install runtime files (libraries, modul= es, app files, nic bind files and documentation) "install-fhs" will be enou= gh :)=20 I mean, it's no necessary to use all targets by separate. this behavior can= be obtained if you do not use "T" variable, if you use it you can get the = previous behaviour in dpdk, this is for compatibility reasons. thank you fo= r your comments and if you have more questions about this feel free to cont= act me :)=20 Thank you so much. Mario. > -----Original Message----- > From: Richardson, Bruce > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 4:49 AM > To: Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C > Cc: Aaron Conole; dev@dpdk.org; Venegas Munoz, Jos C > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/10] Add installation rules for dpdk = files >=20 > On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:25:39PM +0000, Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C wrote: > > Hi Aaron, > > > > > > I have been working on series of patches in order to improve the > > installation process of dpdk, I sent my first version at sep 18. > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/023761.html > > > > I have been received feedback from different developers as Olivier, > > Bruce, Panu etc... and I have been taking note about it and I have > > been improving the patches in each serie, at this moment I haven't > > gotten a final answer, however I'm going to continue working. :) > > > > Mario. > > Thanks. >=20 > Hi Mario, >=20 > it would be good if you could share your opinions of the patchset that Aa= ron > linked to below, and how it might interact with or impact your patchset -= or if > you even think it's not worthwhile doing. There's been a worrying lack of > comment on that thread! >=20 > On your patchset, I'm just not convinced that adding in a whole set of ne= w > make targets is the best way to go here. It seems more like putting an ex= tra > layer of complexity in without fixing the underlying problems [which to m= e is > the fact of "make install" being used in a non-standard way.] >=20 > Regards, > /Bruce >=20 > > ________________________________________ > > From: Aaron Conole [aconole@redhat.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:18 AM > > To: Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Venegas Munoz, Jos C; Richardson, Bruce > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/10] Add installation rules for > > dpdk files > > > > Hi Mario, > > > > Mario Carrillo writes: > > > DPDK package lacks of a mechanism to install libraries, headers > > > applications, kernel modules and sdk files to a file system tree. > > > This patch set allows to install files based on the next > > > proposal: > > > http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file- > hierarchy.html > > > > I'm not sure what this patch holds, given the following proposal: > > > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/027777.html > > > > -Aaron > >