On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 6:02 PM Burakov, Anatoly <anatoly.bura...@intel.com> wrote: > >>> SPDK build is still broken. > >>> http://mails.dpdk.org/archives/test-report/2021-January/174840.html > > [...] > >>> I guess this is because of the added dependency of rte_ethdev to > >>> rte_power. > >>> Afaics, SPDK does not use pkg-config: > >>> https://github.com/spdk/spdk/blob/master/lib/env_dpdk/env.mk#L53 > >> > >> Sooo... this is an SPDK issue then? Because i can't see any way of > >> fixing the issue on DPDK side. > > > > Yes SPDK should not skip pkg-config. > > But it raises 2 question: > > - are we breaking ABI compatibility? > > Good question. Does including an extra intra-DPDK dependency count as > ABI break? I was under impression that we didn't want DPDK to be > distributed as individual libraries but rather would like it to be used > as a whole, so if internal dependencies between components change, it's > not a big deal (unless a third-party build system is used that > explicitly specifies dependencies rather than using pkg-config).
I don't get where an ABI breakage would be. What I reported is an issue with static link. For shared link, I would expect librte_power would expose its dependency on rte_ethdev via a DT_NEEDED entry. The final binary does not have to be aware of it. -- David Marchand
