Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Improve optional lib support

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 10:23:40AM +0100, David Marchand wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 20, 2023 at 3:22 PM Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patchset builds on the previous v1 and v2, and the discussion
> > which followed about what libraries should be optional. While still
> > a long way to go from the position suggested in the v2 discussion,
> > this set moves us a bit further along the road.
> >
> > The first patch is a direct v3 from previous versions, changing the
> > tracking from a list of optional libs to a list of mandatory ones.
> > The second patch then knocks off another 5 libs off the mandatory
> > list - all are libs which should have few dependencies in other
> > components, but which some common sample apps like l3fwd depend upon.
> > It should be possible to make other libs optional in future, but to
> > do so likely requires code-changes to #ifdef out support in places.
> >
> > To that end, patch 3 is an RFC to add support for "optional libs" to
> > the build system. For now, nothing uses this, but it may be useful if
> > someone does want to take on the task of removing a hard dependency
> > from one component on another and making it optional.
> >
> > Bruce Richardson (3):
> >   build: track mandatory rather than optional libs
> >   build: remove 5 libs from mandatory list
> >   build: RFC - add support for optional dependencies
> 
> I was not sure if I should take the third patch, but the two others
> make sense to me and I applied them.
> The third one can be reconsidered when the need arises.
> 
Yep, agreed. Thanks.

/Bruce