On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:21:50PM -0700, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 03:15:46PM -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > With a single archive, you get everything you build even if you don't need
> > it.
>
> Right, I was trying to avoid that for people who specifically didn't want it,
> if there are any... I'm not one of them.
>
> > But presumably if you're building a static binary, you're
> > likely building the dpdk as well and can configure optional libraries out
> > of the
> > build. Separate libraries are more a need for downstream
> > distributors/packagers, who use dynamic shared objects anyway.
>
> Yeah, I was thinking it'd be nice if the downstream packagers could get a
> global '.a' and per-sublib '.a' as well. So that one dpdk package could be
> used by a client app which wanted everything, or only wanted portions.
>
> > Backward compatibilty? the DPDK doesn't yet provide run time compatibility
> > between releases (something I've been trying to change). Nobody provides
> > compile time compatibility. To do so would require fixing API's
> > permenently.
>
> Agreed. I was just advocating to avoid worsening the already existent issues.
> ;)
>
> Matthew.
>
Fair enough
Neil
