On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:38:33AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:36 AM Bruce Richardson > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:31:19AM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 4:26 PM Bruce Richardson > > > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 04:11:37PM +0200, David Marchand wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 9:21 AM David Marchand > > > > > <david.march...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > @@ -141,13 +137,25 @@ foreach l:libraries > > > > > > deps += ['eal'] > > > > > > endif > > > > > > > > > > > > - if disabled_libs.contains(l) > > > > > > + if not enable_libs.contains(l) > > > > > > + build = false > > > > > > + reason = 'not in enabled libraries build config' > > > > > > + elif disable_libs.contains(l) > > > > > > build = false > > > > > > reason = 'explicitly disabled via build config' > > > > > > - if dpdk_libs_deprecated.contains(l) > > > > > > + endif > > > > > > > > > > There is also a change in behavior for current users of the > > > > > -Ddisable_libs= configuration (which was used for enabling deprecated > > > > > libraries, for example). > > > > > > > > I notice the change in behaviour for enabling the deprecated libs. Is > > > > there > > > > any other change in behaviour for current users? > > > > > > The only change I see, is that this implementation breaks enabling > > > deprecated libs via disable_libs. > > > It may break existing developer build directory and maybe some > > > packaging scripts, this is why I am a bit puzzled. > > > > > > Relooking at the disable_libs option current implementation, it seems > > > backward to pass a disable_libs option when you want to build some > > > deprecated library. > > > It is more straightforward to request building libraries via > > > -Denable_libs=<deprecated_lib> explicitly or -Denable_libs=* > > > implicitly. > > > > > > But again, we may be breaking something for people who relied on this > > > behavior. > > > > > > > That's what I expected, and I think that is ok. I just wanted to check that > > the change in behaviour was only for the deprecated libs case. > > Thomas, wdyt? > It requires some release note, at least. > I am assuming this is not targetting this release though, right? Assuming 23.11, we can put in a deprecation note informing of the change ahead of time too.
/Bruce
