From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:13:49 +0100 Message-ID: <10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13> References: <1453991505-15205-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <2635551.TO27lmebJ9@xps13> <20160212165932.GA26328@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Ferruh Yigit Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f46.google.com (mail-wm0-f46.google.com [74.125.82.46]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3031395D3 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:15:20 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f46.google.com with SMTP id c200so30158156wme.0 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 09:15:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160212165932.GA26328@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 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?