2015-11-30 14:27, Jan Viktorin: > I believe (and have already expressed this idea) that this is not a > problem of architecture ports but it is a problem of the build system. > Love me or hate me, in my opinion the build system is broken :). The > build system should be able to solve this. > > I've created privately an integration of kconfig into DPDK, however, it > is far from being usable and I did not have time to make at least an > RFC patch. If there is an attitude in the community to include such > thing in the future versions, I'd like to make some more effort in this > area.
If we were integrating kconfig, we should consider kconfig-frontends (http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/projects/kconfig-frontends). But I'm not sure it is the way to go. You are welcome to open the debate in a dedicated thread by explaining the benefits compared to a configuration script. I think most of the options could be automatically guessed given the target CPU, kernel, libc and compiler. It looks like a scripting task, not a manual configuration (as kconfig provides). But maybe we can mix kconfig and some automatic defaults.
