From: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
To: Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:13:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160212165932.GA26328@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com>
2016-02-12 16:59, Ferruh Yigit:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 04:04:07PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> > 2016-02-12 14:31, Panu Matilainen:
> > > On 01/28/2016 04:31 PM, Bernard Iremonger wrote:
> > > > add config/defconfig_x86_64-default-linuxapp-gcc file.
> > >
> > > There was a related discussion back in March, see
> > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-March/014626.html
> > >
> > > I intended to go with that and submit patch(es) but the amount of
> > > duplication and new files gets mind-numbing when you make them for all
> > > existing targets. In other words, this approach doesn't scale.
> > >
> > > Thomas, I remember seeing a plan to include a configure script in DPDK
> > > many times in past months. Do you have something specific in mind, ie
> > > actually use autoconf or just a custom hand-written script named
> > > "configure" that roughly resembles autoconf configure or...?
> >
> > A script named "configure" looks fine.
> > Bruce introduced the idea of calling "make config" in the script:
> > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-October/026256.html
> > Maybe it is a good start to move forward.
> > I think we have to choose between a script and a kconfig approach giving
> > the menus GUIs as bonus.
> >
> Another thing kconfig can help is to resolve dependencies, harder to make this with a
> script. Currently we already have dependencies, although not complex, and resolved
> within makefile.
Dependencies are not so well resolved currently.
We have internal and external dependencies.
The internal ones would be better resolved with kconfig or a script.
The external dependencies are often managed by autotools but I'm sure
we prefer have a clean script instead of this beast ;)
> I believe correct place to solve them is a configuration tool so that makefiles or
> source files can be clean.
I think a configuration tool/script must help to make a working config.
But do you really think we should remove the gatekeepers in Makefiles?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-12 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-28 14:31 [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration Bernard Iremonger
2016-02-12 12:31 ` Panu Matilainen
2016-02-12 15:04 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-12 16:59 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-12 17:13 ` Thomas Monjalon [this message]
2016-02-12 17:23 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-16 11:16 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-16 11:23 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-02-16 12:08 ` Ferruh Yigit
2016-02-17 10:42 ` Iremonger, Bernard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13 \
--to=thomas.monjalon@6wind.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=ferruh.yigit@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.