On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:25:39PM +0000, Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C wrote: > Hi Aaron, > > > I have been working on series of patches in order to improve > the installation process of dpdk, I sent my first version at > sep 18. > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-September/023761.html > > I have been received feedback from different developers as > Olivier, Bruce, Panu etc... and I have been taking note about it > and I have been improving the patches in each serie, at this > moment I haven't gotten a final answer, however I'm going to continue > working. :) > > Mario. > Thanks.
Hi Mario, it would be good if you could share your opinions of the patchset that Aaron linked to below, and how it might interact with or impact your patchset - or if you even think it's not worthwhile doing. There's been a worrying lack of comment on that thread! On your patchset, I'm just not convinced that adding in a whole set of new make targets is the best way to go here. It seems more like putting an extra layer of complexity in without fixing the underlying problems [which to me is the fact of "make install" being used in a non-standard way.] Regards, /Bruce > ________________________________________ > From: Aaron Conole [aconole at redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 9:18 AM > To: Arevalo, Mario Alfredo C > Cc: dev at dpdk.org; Venegas Munoz, Jos C; Richardson, Bruce > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v6 00/10] Add installation rules for dpdk files > > Hi Mario, > > Mario Carrillo <mario.alfredo.c.arevalo at intel.com> writes: > > DPDK package lacks of a mechanism to install libraries, headers > > applications, kernel modules and sdk files to a file system tree. > > This patch set allows to install files based on the next > > proposal: > > http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/file-hierarchy.html > > I'm not sure what this patch holds, given the following proposal: > > http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-November/027777.html > > -Aaron >
