On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 7:04 PM Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> wrote: > > On 8/7/2020 2:23 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 06:49:47PM +0530, Jerin Jacob wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 6:15 PM Bruce Richardson > >> <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Aug 07, 2020 at 01:29:52PM +0100, Ciara Power wrote: > >>>> It was decided [1] to no longer support Make in DPDK, this patch > >>>> removes all Makefiles that do not make use of pkg-config, along with > >>>> the mk directory previously used by make. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://mails.dpdk.org/archives/dev/2020-April/162839.html > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Ciara Power <ciara.po...@intel.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> GNUmakefile | 17 - > >>>> Makefile | 4 - > >>> > >>> Open question from me: > >>> Do we want to leave a dummy top-level makefile that prints instructions on > >>> build with meson and ninja - or even runs a build using them if they are > >>> installed? > >> > >> Maybe we can keep "make tags" as well in top-level Makefile. > > > > Is it better to point people directly to the script? My concern about > > having a makefile is that it may confuse people as to how to build DPDK. > > On the other side, there is a convenience aspect to having a makefile, so > > I'm open to being convinced either way.
I was looking more of a convenience point of view. Can we check how other meson based projects deal with similar problems? > > > > A dummy Makefile to print instructions may be helpful for people missed the > change, I am for having it. > > But I am dubious on extending it, like for tags, although I found it useful I > think we should integrate it to meson instead. I think, we can not integrate such stuff with meson. If we can with meson, I agree we should take that path.
