From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124])
	by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F65468FD;
	Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:14:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEA34402BC;
	Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:14:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com
 (smartserver.smartsharesystems.com [77.243.40.215])
 by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BA1D4021E;
 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:14:52 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from smartserver.smartsharesystems.com
 (smartserver.smartsharesys.local [192.168.4.10])
 by dkmailrelay1.smartsharesystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E346200E2;
 Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:14:52 +0200 (CEST)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: DPDK libs as one big shared object
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 18:14:49 +0200
Message-ID: <98CBD80474FA8B44BF855DF32C47DC35E9FD01@smartserver.smartshare.dk>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: DPDK libs as one big shared object
Thread-Index: Adve2cjXRdUgmVzQTXCQB5mG0JHn+Q==
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Morten_Br=F8rup?= <mb@smartsharesystems.com>
To: <dev@dpdk.org>
Cc: <techboard@dpdk.org>
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mails.dpdk.org/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org

Why are we still building one .so file per DPDK library, instead of just =
building one big dpdk.so for all DPDK libraries?
I think it's legacy from when DPDK libraries were versioned =
individually, and thus not relevant anymore.

Wouldn't building one big dpdk.so eliminate the problems with circular =
dependencies between DPDK libraries?

-Morten