2015-11-25 10:48, Panu Matilainen:
> On 11/24/2015 06:54 PM, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 02:04:54PM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> >> 2015-11-06 12:57, Bruce Richardson:
> >>> So, any thoughts or comments on this? There has been lots of discussion
> >>> in this
> >>> general area but nothing yet going into the release to try and improve
> >>> the situation.
> >>>
> >>> Are we just going to kick the problem down the road to the 2.3 release?
> >>
> >> I plan to check these patches in the coming days for an integration in 2.2.
> >>
> > Anything further on this?
> > Any thoughts from anyone else about this whole area of a saner build/install
> > system for DPDK and the various patches floating around.
>
> Well, it seems we wont have a sane "make install" in 2.2 yet, but this
> is at least a step in the right direction so +1 from me.
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?
