From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH] reserve 'make install' for future use Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:19:22 +0100 Message-ID: <3725311.VXmvO5gR6z@xps13> References: <1446805454-17776-1-git-send-email-bruce.richardson@intel.com> <3475702.r5OlE1Gpee@xps13> <565C406C.8020005@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev@dpdk.org To: Panu Matilainen Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f51.google.com (mail-wm0-f51.google.com [74.125.82.51]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97424594B for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 15:20:30 +0100 (CET) Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so159039428wmv.1 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 06:20:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <565C406C.8020005@redhat.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" 2015-11-30 14:26, Panu Matilainen: > On 11/27/2015 07:33 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-11-25 10:48, Panu Matilainen: > >> On 11/24/2015 06:54 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > >>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 02:04:54PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>> 2015-11-06 12:57, Bruce Richardson: > >>>>> So, any thoughts or comments on this? There has been lots of discussion in this > >>>>> general area but nothing yet going into the release to try and improve the situation. > >>>>> > >>>>> Are we just going to kick the problem down the road to the 2.3 release? > >>>> > >>>> I plan to check these patches in the coming days for an integration in 2.2. > >>>> > >>> Anything further on this? > >>> Any thoughts from anyone else about this whole area of a saner build/install > >>> system for DPDK and the various patches floating around. > >> > >> Well, it seems we wont have a sane "make install" in 2.2 yet, but this > >> is at least a step in the right direction so +1 from me. > > > > Why is it a step in the right direction? > > Right direction as in, everybody seems to agree we want "make install" > ultimately do the right thing. If we can't have it in 2.2 yet then a > preparatory step is better than not having it. Yes sure. We will have something in 2.2. The question is what :) > > What have I missed? > > Perhaps its me who has missed the fact that 2.2 is still open for these > kind of things. Yes we still have more than one week before closing the release. We can try some changes in the build system. > If it were up to me, I think I'd just apply Marios latest patch series > (perhaps condence it somewhat) to get it over with, fine-tune later > if/as necessary. This is veering to the side of bikeshedding real fast. > > BTW, one noteworthy point is that in all of these related threads, > nobody absolutely nobody has spoken up for the current behavior of "make > install". Which makes me wonder if anybody is actually using it, and > whether all this is just worrying for nothing. Yes we can break some old behaviours. The T= option should be easy to simulate in a single target case.