From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ferruh Yigit Subject: Re: [PATCH] config: add default linux configuration Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:23:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20160212172318.GA30481@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> References: <1453991505-15205-1-git-send-email-bernard.iremonger@intel.com> <2635551.TO27lmebJ9@xps13> <20160212165932.GA26328@sivlogin002.ir.intel.com> <10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Thomas Monjalon Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9D7695D5 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:23:21 +0100 (CET) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10873835.umk2ANPAO0@xps13> 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" On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 06:13:49PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > 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? > I think we should remove combination of config related "if" checks from makefiles, "ENABLE-$(CONFIG_X) += y" should be sufficient. And if CONFIG_X should be set or not is be problem of the config tool. Thanks, ferruh