Hi Neil, Thanks for sharing your progress.
My main concerns are about naming and extensions. We must keep "dpdk-core" naming in order to distinguish it from PMD extensions. And then, packaging of memnic and non-uio paravirtualization PMDs (virtio/vmxnet3) are missing. 2014-05-13 15:08, Neil Horman: > My current effort to do so. I've made some changes from the stock spec file > included in dpdk: We should try to get .spec for Fedora and in-tree .spec as common as possible. There are probably some things to push. > * Modified the version and release values to be separate from the name. I > did some reading on requirements for packaging and it seems we can be a bit > more lax with ABI version on a pre-release I think, so I setup the N-V-R to > use pre-release conventions, which makes sense, give that this is a 1.7.0 > pre-release. The git tag on the relase value will get bumped as we move > forward in the patch series. I thought that we should put version in the name, in order to be able to install many versions together. How is it handled by yum? > * Added config files to match desired configs for Fedora (i.e. disabled > PMD's that require out of tree kernel modules It would be clearer to make your configuration changes with "sed -i". In a near future we would probably need a "configure" script to do it. So you don't package igb_uio but you build it because there is no option to disable it currently. We should add such option. > * Moved the package target directories to include N-V of the package in the > path names. This allows for multiple versions of the dpdk to be installed > in parallel (I.e. dpdk-1.7.0 files are in /lib/dpdk-1.7.0, > /usr/include/dpdk-1.7.0, etc). This is how java packages allow for > multiple version installs, and makes sense given ABI instability in dpdk. > It will require that developers add some -I / -L paths to their makefiles > to pull the proper version, but I think thats a fair tradeoff. I don't see version for include directory and bin directory (testpmd). Thanks -- Thomas
