On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 09:51:05AM +0100, Dariusz Sosnowski wrote:
> > +use std::process::Command;
> > +
> > +pub fn main() {
> > + let mut pkgconfig = Command::new("pkg-config");
> > +
> > + match pkgconfig.args(["--libs", "libdpdk"]).output() {
> > + Ok(output) => {
> > + let stdout = String::from_utf8_lossy(&output.stdout)
> > + .trim_end()
> > + .to_string();
> > + for token in stdout.split_ascii_whitespace().filter(|s|
> > !s.is_empty()) {
> > + if token.starts_with("-L") {
> > + println!("cargo::rustc-link-search=native={}",
> > &token[2..]);
> > + } else if token.starts_with("-l") {
> > + println!("cargo::rustc-link-lib={}", &token[2..]);
> > + }
> > + }
> > + println!("cargo:rerun-if-changed=build.rs");
> > + }
> > + Err(error) => {
> > + panic!("failed to read libdpdk package: {:?}", error);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +}
>
>
> What do you think about using pkg_config crate in build scripts?
> (https://crates.io/crates/pkg-config)
>
> This would allow to remove manual command execution and output parsing with
> the following:
>
> fn main() {
> pkg_config::probe_library("libdpdk").expect("Unable to find libdpdk");
> }
>
> Also, what do you think about moving this logic to dpdk crate?
> This way dependency resolution would be shared by all examples/applications
> which use the dpdk crate.
I just noticed that similar proposal was raised by Harry previously.
Sorry for the duplication :)
