2015-11-30 14:26, Panu Matilainen: > On 11/27/2015 07:33 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 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? > > Right direction as in, everybody seems to agree we want "make install" > ultimately do the right thing. If we can't have it in 2.2 yet then a > preparatory step is better than not having it.
Yes sure. We will have something in 2.2. The question is what :) > > What have I missed? > > Perhaps its me who has missed the fact that 2.2 is still open for these > kind of things. Yes we still have more than one week before closing the release. We can try some changes in the build system. > If it were up to me, I think I'd just apply Marios latest patch series > (perhaps condence it somewhat) to get it over with, fine-tune later > if/as necessary. This is veering to the side of bikeshedding real fast. > > BTW, one noteworthy point is that in all of these related threads, > nobody absolutely nobody has spoken up for the current behavior of "make > install". Which makes me wonder if anybody is actually using it, and > whether all this is just worrying for nothing. Yes we can break some old behaviours. The T= option should be easy to simulate in a single target case.
