2015-11-30 15:26, Thomas Monjalon: > 2015-11-30 11:49, Bruce Richardson: > > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:41:32AM +0000, Richardson, Bruce wrote: > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 11:27 AM > > > > To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson at intel.com> > > > > Cc: Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at redhat.com>; dev at dpdk.org; > > > > olivier.matz at 6wind.com > > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] reserve 'make install' for future use > > > > > > > > 2015-11-30 11:08, Richardson, Bruce: > > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:thomas.monjalon at 6wind.com] > > > > > > Why is it a step in the right direction? > > > > > > > > > > > > We just need to install the files in a different hierarchy and adapt > > > > > > the makefiles to be able to compile an application while keeping the > > > > > > RTE_SDK variable to specify the root directory (previously built > > > > > > thanks to DESTDIR). > > > > > > As the hierarchy could be tuned, we need more variables, e.g.: > > > > > > DPDK_INC_DIR (default = RTE_SDK/include/dpdk) > > > > > > DPDK_LIB_DIR (default = RTE_SDK/lib) > > > > > > > > > > > > While doing it, we can have a specific handling of T= to keep > > > > > > compatibility with the current (old) syntax. > > > > > > > > > > > > What have I missed? > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure our existing "make install" is suitable for use for this, > > > > without having it heavily overloaded. The existing T= behavior has > > > > support > > > > for wildcards and compiling multiple instances at the same time - > > > > something that won't work with a scheme to actually install DPDK > > > > throughout the filesystem hierarchy. Having it sometimes behave as now, > > > > and sometimes behave as a standard make install is a bad idea IMHO, as > > > > it > > > > confuses things. Having lots of extra environment variables is also not > > > > a > > > > great idea, to my mind. > > > > > > > > Yes I agree. > > > > I forgot to mention it, but in my idea, we can drop the support for > > > > multiple targets. So the T= compatibility would be only a shortcut to do > > > > "make config" and name the build directory based on the template name. > > > > > > > > About the environment variables: > > > > An application requires CFLAGS and LDFLAGS (at least). The standard way > > > > to > > > > provide them is pkgconfig (not implemented yet). > > > > For applications using the DPDK makefiles, the only input is RTE_SDK. > > > > When allowing more tuning in paths, we need more variables when using > > > > the > > > > DPDK makefiles to build an application. > > > > > > > > > My opinion is that we should rename our existing "make install" to > > > > something more suitable - my patch suggestion was "make sdk" but it > > > > could > > > > be "make target" or something else if people prefer. Once that is done, > > > > we > > > > can then look to implement a proper "make install" command that works > > > > in a > > > > standard way, perhaps alongside a configure script of some description. > > > > > > > > I think we don't need to rename or move some code. > > > > Just drop and replace some of them. > > > > > > > > The configure script is a great idea but it is a totally different idea. > > > > I do not think that installation and configuration should be related. > > > > Please let's consider "make install" first. > > > > > > > > > For an easy enough solution, I would look to apply this patch to > > > > > create > > > > "make sdk" and also http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/8076/ to have a > > > > "make install" command that works in the build dir. That way: > > > > > * you can have existing behavior using "make sdk T=<target>" > > > > > * you can have standard(ish) configure/make/make install behavior > > > > > using: > > > > > make config T=<target> > > > > > cd build > > > > > make > > > > > make install > > > > > and the "make config" step can subsequently be wrapped in a > > > > > configure > > > > script to eliminate the need to know what the best target to use is, > > > > etc. > > > > > > > > As Panu commented, I do not think it is a good idea to have different > > > > behaviours inside and outside of the build directory. > > > > I would even say that this embedded makefile is only confusing and > > > > should > > > > be dropped. > > > > We need to have *one* right building methods, not to bring more > > > > confusion. > > > > > > I disagree. I don't think we can have *one* right building method, > > > because to > > > do so means completely throwing away our existing methods of building DPDK > > > and using sample applications. That general method, using RTE_SDK and > > > RTE_TARGET > > > needs to be supported for some time for those projects already familiar > > > with it > > > and using it. > > We can keep it for some time while allowing other tree hierarchies. > > > > As well as this, we also need a sane way of building DPDK inside the > > > "build" > > > directory, and having a "make install" target that installs the libraries > > > and headers inside /usr/local (or whatever was specified as $prefix). > > > > > > With regards to different behavior, since different targets are provided, > > > I > > > don't see it as a problem. In the root directory, "make config" and "make > > > sdk" > > > are provided for backward compatibility. Inside the build directory you > > > have > > > your standard "make" and "make install" commands. Since the command set is > > > very limited, it's easy enough to print a suitable error when the wrong > > > command is used in the wrong place. > > > > By way of follow-up to my own email, I'd also state that I would indeed > > prefer > > not to have different targets in different places, and that ideally you > > would > > do configure/make/make-install from the root directory. The reason I > > suggested > > having "make install" work inside the build directory is because of our > > existing use of "make install" for something different in the root > > directory. > > This is also the reason I sent out this patch. By renaming the "make > > install" > > command in 2.2, we give ourselves the option in future releases of adding in > > a new "make install" command that behaves as we want, without having to > > worry > > about conflict with a legacy make install. > > > > That is why I feel this one patch should go in - it opens up more options > > for > > us in future releases. It's not an end in itself. :-) > > If we do not agree on something else (I'll try to submit some patches), > yes your patch to introduce "make sdk" will be integrated. > But I'd prefer avoiding to document a new command which will be deprecated > when the new-new "make install" will be implemented. > I think there is another solution (I may be wrong). > > > > Yes, I would like the ideal state where we have one set of build commands > > > that > > > are run from just one location. However, I don't think we can get to that > > > objective > > > without going through a transition phase where we support both old and > > > new options. > > > > > > /Bruce
The patch series for standard make install (http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-December/029416.html) demonstrates that it is possible to have a standard make install while keeping the old behaviour. So this patch is marked as rejected in patchwork. To avoid confusion, the name of the old "make install T=" could be renamed in a later release when the new install will be well known.
